View Full Version : Batsuit Discussion Thread
JBElliott
09-29-2006, 04:49 PM
Here's the new look:
http://newcomicreviews.com/unsorted/29/baby20ownou7.gif
(wait for it!)
batman44
09-29-2006, 10:10 PM
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b310/midnite4/scan0006B.jpg
A two tone bat-suit could look great.
KalMart
09-29-2006, 10:18 PM
A two tone bat-suit could look great.
It would be pretty hard to pick up the difference of those two shades of black/grey live-action/on film, though. It would still look all-black, especially with the noir-ish look they've adopted. You'd have to go pretty light grey to contrast enough with the black...and then we get into the Adam West territory that so many loathe. I think we'd pick up more (visually, at least) from different textures and sheens, rather than different tones of black/grey.
lujho
09-30-2006, 10:19 PM
It would be pretty hard to pick up the difference of those two shades of black/grey live-action/on film, though. It would still look all-black, especially with the noir-ish look they've adopted.
It depends. Sometimes it would, sometimes it would be lit well enough to see the contrast. I don't think there's a problem with that. You wouldn't need to have Bats in broad daylight or anything. Grading in post production would allow finer control - just adjust the picture so that the black looks black and you can see that the grey is slightly lighter.
Booznian
09-30-2006, 10:53 PM
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b310/midnite4/scan0006B.jpg
A two tone bat-suit could look great.
PERFECT! Reminds mee of the Batman Forever suit a bit.
Bathead
09-30-2006, 11:06 PM
Needs trunks, though. Two tone suit looks dumb without them.
7Hells
09-30-2006, 11:07 PM
My favorite part about that pic and most of the conceptual changes in this thread is the way the cape gathers around the cowl.
I hated that part of the BB suit :(
KalMart
10-01-2006, 02:12 AM
It depends. Sometimes it would, sometimes it would be lit well enough to see the contrast. I don't think there's a problem with that. You wouldn't need to have Bats in broad daylight or anything. Grading in post production would allow finer control - just adjust the picture so that the black looks black and you can see that the grey is slightly lighter.
But only in still shots, when looked at closely. Not in motion, unless you lit specifically for that...which would will not hold up under any motion further than a few feet or so. Forget the two-tone approach unless you're going to go with light grey against black.
Saint
10-01-2006, 03:43 AM
Oh please.
DAVIDYR1
10-01-2006, 02:00 PM
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b310/midnite4/scan0006B.jpg
A two tone bat-suit could look great.
I agree...a two tone suit would be fun, but...based on that drawing there...that does kind of seem to be what we got for BEGINS color and shading wise no?
I dont think that drawing is actually 2 colors as much as they're trying to show depth with shading.
I think that's pretty close to the overall look of the begins suit in the film..at least that's how I see it when lightly lit...dim lighting..
However...a 2 tone suit in the true sense of the word could rock...2 slightly different dark shades are we'd need to convey the look.
David
deathfromabove
10-01-2006, 02:22 PM
Yeah, a wetsuit or something similar is essentially what I was talking about in my "ideal" description. The Begin's suit itself is essentially a wetsuit with rubber glue-ons. Obviously, the glue-on pieces are much thicker on the torso than they are on the arms and legs. Also, they are greater in number and complexity. In my second description--the compromise--what I would be suggesting is keeping the glue-ons, but using the same sort of simple, thin ones they used on the arms and legs (which were much more flexible than the core of the body in the film).
Just to illustrate my point, here's a shot of the Begins suit:
http://www.darkhorizons.com/news04/batsuit.jpg
Here the difference between the chest and limbs is pretty obvious. You can see "wrinkles" at the joints, which I like, but the torso folds (which I don't like). The thinner. smoother, simpler approach to the arms and legs needs to be applied to the torso.
agreed.
definately thin the suit out a little bit (mostly the chest), make it fit a little better, especially in the cowl, and maybe tone the detail down just slightly and there you go. otherwise it looks great.
oh, and anyone who thinks the suit isn't already two toned is blind. :whatever: :batty:
Wouldn't it make sense for Batman to wear a mask that completely covers his face?
Herr Logan
10-04-2006, 08:50 PM
Wouldn't it make sense for Batman to wear a mask that completely covers his face?
It's a damn good thing I know you better than to think that was an actual suggestion for a Batman movie. :mad:
:wolverine
It's a damn good thing I know you better than to think that was an actual suggestion for a Batman movie. :mad:
:wolverine
It's too bad people will take a seriously :csad:.
Fenrir
10-04-2006, 08:56 PM
Boom, your new avvy sucks. :o
Boom, your new avvy sucks. :o
:dry:
DavidTyler
10-07-2006, 01:01 PM
I think it was inspired by wrestlers.
No, trunks on a superhero costume were inspired by gymnast, circus arialists, and circus strong men.
StorminNorman
10-07-2006, 01:09 PM
Boom, your new avvy sucks. :o
WTF? Boom's avy is classic and makes me feel happy when times are grey.
Fenrir
10-07-2006, 01:29 PM
WTF? Boom's avy is classic and makes me feel happy when times are grey.
He had Steve Carrell's mugshot as his avvy for a day or two before he changed it back.
He had Steve Carrell's mugshot as his avvy for a day or two before he changed it back.
Actually you are mistaken.
It was The Chosen One from Kung Pow.
StorminNorman
10-07-2006, 01:37 PM
He had Steve Carrell's mugshot as his avvy for a day or two before he changed it back.
Wow...I missed that :( Glad to have Drunk Kermitt back I guess...
YOU DON'T RESPECT ME.
:csad:
kenellard
10-07-2006, 02:23 PM
Wow...I missed that :( Glad to have Drunk Kermitt back I guess...
wtf? boom's avi is the best one on here, KERMITT DAMMIT!
The-Dark-Knight
10-08-2006, 03:26 PM
Boom dont change your avvy, its great Kermit rules, wen i see someone mention you i always think of kermit.KERMIT FOR DENT DAMMIT (i can imagine him on Gotham police HQ with Gordon wearing that rain mac he wears on sesame street)
Superman Prime
10-08-2006, 03:38 PM
We love you BOOM.
Chris Wallace
10-09-2006, 10:09 AM
Many of them also draw Batman with hyper-exaggerated musculature (with the help of said shading and definition), so you're looking more at his physique than the actual suit. Not as doable in live-action, especially in movement. I'm okay with the design approach to the BB suit, but the fit didn't look good....made him look too stocky and not broad enough in the shoulders. I think Bale put on too much muscle, as he's not as lanky as someone like Routh or Jackman...so it made him thicker, but not necessarily bigger-looking. I think he should've had his more toned and streamlined physique from American Psycho, and let the suit add a bit more girth and width in the shoulders.
Another thought-getting skinny like he did for "The Machinist" might've affected how he bulked up.
JBElliott
10-12-2006, 01:02 PM
For those of you who like an armored Batman, here's some concept art:
http://comicartfans.com/Images/Category_491/subcat_3554/BatmanMech.jpg
Cobblepot
10-12-2006, 01:07 PM
I don't see anything...
Chris Wallace
10-12-2006, 04:51 PM
Me neither.
It's basically Batman-Meets-Robocop, and it's ugly.
Jager X
10-12-2006, 07:35 PM
i would like to see bats wear a suit made of cloth-like material.it could be explained that its a new material that is as thin and flexible as a form-fitted muscle shirt and as tough as teflon.his way, his suit doesn't have those distracting armor plates and his muscles can show through ala the comics.btw, this wouldn't be the first time this idea would be used in a movie for i saw it in a stephen baldwin movie.
Bathead
10-13-2006, 01:59 AM
i would like to see bats wear a suit made of cloth-like material.it could be explained that its a new material that is as thin and flexible as a form-fitted muscle shirt and as tough as teflon.his way, his suit doesn't have those distracting armor plates and his muscles can show through ala the comics.btw, this wouldn't be the first time this idea would be used in a movie for i saw it in a stephen baldwin movie.
Coud someone please repost the link to that article about "liquid armor"?
Zephyr Alexian
10-13-2006, 05:33 AM
Boom, your new avvy sucks. :o
Yeah, it's from a few days ago, but that avvy is the greatness.
Where else could you see Kermit's reaction after finding out that Ms. Piggy used to be Mr. Piggy?:)
http://www.froggyville.com/images/frog_sad.gif
It's crude, but you get the idea. . .
Chris Wallace
10-13-2006, 11:32 AM
It's basically Batman-Meets-Robocop, and it's ugly.
That doesn't help; many people said that about Keaton's suit.
Brian Braddock
10-13-2006, 11:55 AM
Yet the only metal Keaton had on the Batsuit in Batman 89 were the gauntlets.
Or do you mean the Returns suit with the plating for abs?
Chris Wallace
10-13-2006, 11:57 AM
Doesn't matter-people said it about both. When they weren't saying he looked like one of the Village People or some kind of S&M suit.
Brian Braddock
10-13-2006, 12:14 PM
Ah right, gotcha.
JBElliott
10-13-2006, 03:36 PM
Coud someone please repost the link to that article about "liquid armor"?
Here's one: http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?type=article&article_id=218392807
Bathead
10-14-2006, 06:00 AM
Tnx, JB.
batdoyle
10-14-2006, 06:51 AM
ok. now im not expecting you all to believe me, as i have no actual written or photo proof, and im still waiting on final details myself. BUT. my girlfriend who goes to university in london, has a tutor who is......da da da.... making the new batsuit (and the joker outfit). im still trying to get as much info out of him as possible, but all i can find out so far is, its going to be more like the comic, and 'based on 80's trainers, with velcro and things'. now dont flame me, as i have NO idea what thats supposed to mean. as i find out more, i promise i will let people know.
oh, and just to let you know, the jokers in the film A LOT
ROBOCOP CPU001
10-14-2006, 09:10 AM
I',m sorry my friend, you will be flammed...
i will take you at face value..innocent until prooven guilty.
Herr Logan
10-14-2006, 09:25 AM
I',m sorry my friend, you will be flammed...
i will take you at face value..innocent until prooven guilty.
If he's lying, then he deserves to be flamed. Too bad we won't know until it's too late.
:wolverine
ROBOCOP CPU001
10-14-2006, 09:28 AM
If he's lying, then he deserves to be flamed. Too bad we won't know until it's too late.
:wolverine
I agree.
He will be under arrest for his crime.:hyper:
batdoyle
10-14-2006, 09:41 AM
i know i know. i was expecting to be flamed, and i know what i said sounds odd. if i heard the same thing, i would be the same to be honest. like i said, when i heard the velcro trainer thing, i was like WTF? i dont get it either. as soon as i found out my missus tutor was working on it, i was proper excited, and trying to find out as much as possible. anyway, as soon as i find out ANYTHING, i will let everyone know.
ROBOCOP CPU001
10-14-2006, 09:46 AM
i know i know. i was expecting to be flamed, and i know what i said sounds odd. if i heard the same thing, i would be the same to be honest. like i said, when i heard the velcro trainer thing, i was like WTF? i dont get it either. as soon as i found out my missus tutor was working on it, i was proper excited, and trying to find out as much as possible. anyway, as soon as i find out ANYTHING, i will let everyone know.
If your right..you will be given a big hug by everyone here... if not..
may god have mercy on you.
;)
Brian Braddock
10-14-2006, 11:36 AM
Keaton had Black Velcro trainers in 89.
Crooklyn
10-14-2006, 11:38 AM
...the hell is velcro training?
:huh:
Brian Braddock
10-14-2006, 11:41 AM
Come again?
Brian Braddock
10-14-2006, 11:49 AM
Ah, the penny's dropped; maybe it's the fact we're using the word 'trainers'.
By 'trainers' we mean 'sneakers'.
Velcro sneakers.
Crooklyn
10-14-2006, 11:53 AM
Wonder what that's for then. Velcro to me, always tends to look...cheap. :o
Brian Braddock
10-14-2006, 11:55 AM
When you think about it - it's really practical.
And I doubt we'll see it all that much.
circa81
10-14-2006, 02:24 PM
One approach I think they should try is to go for the anmiated series look, as far as musculature goes. Take this picture for example:http://www.worldsfinestonline.com/WF/batman/btas/episodes/demonsquestp2/03.jpg
Not only is the suit charcoal grey, but it shows almost NO muscles, yet it still looks like batman is a big tough guy. The whole series was like that; little to no musculature, and it worked. So maybe for the Dark Knight they could take off all rubber peaces on the stomach and just portray Batman without muscles, but instead have the shear size of Bale (who I'm sure will be much more pumped up for the next movie) compensate for the lack f depicted muscles on the suite. Just a thought.
StorminNorman
10-14-2006, 03:01 PM
One approach I think they should try is to go for the anmiated series look, as far as musculature goes. Take this picture for example:http://www.worldsfinestonline.com/WF/batman/btas/episodes/demonsquestp2/03.jpg
Not only is the suit charcoal grey, but it shows almost NO muscles, yet it still looks like batman is a big tough guy. The whole series was like that; little to no musculature, and it worked. So maybe for the Dark Knight they could take off all rubber peaces on the stomach and just portray Batman without muscles, but instead have the shear size of Bale (who I'm sure will be much more pumped up for the next movie) compensate for the lack f depicted muscles on the suite. Just a thought.
That would look horrible in real life. It would make Batman look fat - see the Dead End costume.
circa81
10-14-2006, 06:28 PM
I'm not so sure StorminNorman. Can someone make a manip of the Begins suit that takes away the armor/musculature?
ChrisBaleBatman
10-14-2006, 06:51 PM
I dunno....I liked the armor look b/c it didn't really look like rubber to me. It passes as armor, I thought. Kinda like how Keaton's suit had the same armor feel to it in the abdomen area....it LOOKED like it could actually take a bullet, which I liked.
The Dead End costume looked horrible.....if they ever go for the grey ever.....they'll need to try some other type of material.....
I dunno....I liked the armor look b/c it didn't really look like rubber to me. It passes as armor, I thought. Kinda like how Keaton's suit had the same armor feel to it in the abdomen area....it LOOKED like it could actually take a bullet, which I liked.
The Dead End costume looked horrible.....if they ever go for the grey ever.....they'll need to try some other type of material.....
The Keaton suit had plastic in that area instead of rubber, thats why it looked more like armor.
Thespiralgoeson
10-15-2006, 03:02 PM
Batman '89 costume > every other Batman costume seen in any medium IMHO.
cryptic name
10-15-2006, 03:29 PM
That would look horrible in real life. It would make Batman look fat - see the Dead End costume.
he doesn't look fat in dead end. you can see his abs through the spandex. how does that make him look fat?
ChrisBaleBatman
10-15-2006, 03:47 PM
Personally, I don't think he looks fat....I just think he looks like ****. The cowl and cape namely.
Didn't know the abs were made of plastic.....but, they looked sturdy and looked like they could take bullets....which is really the point.
Dr.Doom
10-15-2006, 05:32 PM
For those of you who like an armored Batman, here's some concept art:
http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/7601/batmanmechqx0.jpg
lujho
10-16-2006, 03:11 AM
i know i know. i was expecting to be flamed, and i know what i said sounds odd. if i heard the same thing, i would be the same to be honest. like i said, when i heard the velcro trainer thing, i was like WTF? i dont get it either. as soon as i found out my missus tutor was working on it, i was proper excited, and trying to find out as much as possible. anyway, as soon as i find out ANYTHING, i will let everyone know.
Got a name for this tutor? Surely that would give a better idea whether your claim is legit or not.
Morgoth
10-16-2006, 03:26 AM
Longer ears, no clasps on the cape, bring back the yellow oval, the bat is more unique and Batman's own symbol, not just a generic bat that looks like a Halloween decoration bought at a dollar store, the mask, cape, boots and gloves all need to be black and the rest dark grey, or all black.
A better and bigger mouth opening.
lujho
10-16-2006, 03:30 AM
One approach I think they should try is to go for the anmiated series look, as far as musculature goes. Take this picture for example:http://www.worldsfinestonline.com/WF/batman/btas/episodes/demonsquestp2/03.jpg
Not only is the suit charcoal grey, but it shows almost NO muscles, yet it still looks like batman is a big tough guy. The whole series was like that; little to no musculature, and it worked. So maybe for the Dark Knight they could take off all rubber peaces on the stomach and just portray Batman without muscles, but instead have the shear size of Bale (who I'm sure will be much more pumped up for the next movie) compensate for the lack f depicted muscles on the suite. Just a thought.
That would look more or less like this - which doesn't look fat at all. Yeah, I think the vague, less defined musculature would be cool.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v217/lujho/MyDesigns/BatmanTASstyle.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v217/lujho/MyDesigns/BatmanTASstyle2.jpg
And underneath could be something like this, or at least padding representing it:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v217/lujho/MyDesigns/vest2.jpg
Katsuro
10-16-2006, 05:14 AM
Longer ears, no clasps on the cape, bring back the yellow oval, the bat is more unique and Batman's own symbol, not just a generic bat that looks like a Halloween decoration bought at a dollar store, the mask, cape, boots and gloves all need to be black and the rest dark grey, or all black.
A better and bigger mouth opening.
The yellow oval blows.
Black Mamba
10-16-2006, 02:07 PM
I think they moved on past the yellow oval, that's dead and burried. They're keeping it old school / new school with just the huge bat icon on the chest. Which is the way they should keep it. At least keep as many visual differences from the costumes from the Burton/Shumacher series as you can.
batman44
10-16-2006, 03:45 PM
The yellow oval blows.
NO it doesn't!!!!:cmad: but I like the stand alone bat also so I'm good.
JBElliott
10-16-2006, 06:43 PM
That would look horrible in real life. It would make Batman look fat - see the Dead End costume.
Dude, the Begins suit made Bale look fat. It made him look rectangular. His hips were as wide as his shoulders. Totally lost his V shape. L8.
JBElliott
10-16-2006, 06:46 PM
...I liked the armor look b/c it didn't really look like rubber to me. It passes as armor...
It looked like rubber to me dude.
The Dead End costume looked horrible.....if they ever go for the grey ever.....they'll need to try some other type of material.....
The DE costume rocked out for the money they spent on it. If they had $10K to drop on the suit alone, not the whole eff-ing movie, then the suit would have looked way better than the rubber BB suit. L8.
DAVIDYR1
10-16-2006, 10:41 PM
Dude, the Begins suit made Bale look fat. It made him look rectangular. His hips were as wide as his shoulders. Totally lost his V shape. L8.
Really??? I didnt get that from the suit or him in it at all. I thought it gave him big shoulders...and made him look 'raw'.
I will say that he looked awkeward running in the basement of Arkham....otherwise the suit was a dream come true for me.
I guess for some it worked and for others it still didnt. Should be interesting to see what he does with the next one.
David
MechaOrga
10-17-2006, 01:10 PM
The thing about the suit that always bothered me was the bending of the arm pit area when he wasnt standing up straight(which was often). And sometimes his face looked a little smooshed in the cowl but what you gonna do?...
All in all i think its the best costume to date but it can be improved and should.
IMO just a slimming down of the fabric. I mean if you have a costume made like Spiderman's or Supes and you tell me, an audience member, that its Kevlar, stops "everything but a straight shot", and "it'll stop a knife", you know what, I'm gonna believe you.As long as Film makers set up rules and dont break them, audience members will go along with it. it doesnt have to be an inch an a half thick to make me believe its supa-armour.
Now if it was thick cuz bale looked to thin in any other fabric and not intimidating, then well rubber it is! LOL
Just my 2 cents
Oh and Davidyr1 you do great work. I'm a new poster but ive been watching your stuff on the boards and am very very impressed.
Owen or Law will be Dent.....Heed the warning....
lujho
10-17-2006, 04:30 PM
The thing about the suit that always bothered me was the bending of the arm pit area when he wasnt standing up straight(which was often). And sometimes his face looked a little smooshed in the cowl but what you gonna do?...
Uh.. make a cowl that doesn't do that? It's not like it hasn't been done before.
The key is to not have a small round mouth-hole.
MechaOrga
10-17-2006, 04:49 PM
Uh.. make a cowl that doesn't do that? It's not like it hasn't been done before.
The key is to not have a small round mouth-hole.
totally plausable. I was just saying "what ya gonna do" as in "we should be happy with what we got....could have been a lot worse"
Owen or Law will be Dent...Heed the warning!
Herr Logan
10-17-2006, 05:35 PM
Yes, Lujho, you should always be happy with what you get. Don't ever expect more, even when it's completely reasonable.
:wolverine
MechaOrga
10-17-2006, 07:37 PM
Even when a film maker has the best resources and the creator of the comic book on speed dial, dont expect him to use it and use the comics as a bible. I mean c'mon guys, you saw the same Superhero films I have in the past several years. Stories change, characters costumes are butchered.
Should they change the suit to something more thinner with a better cowl(which I completely agree with), OF Course!
Hope for the best in superhero films, but expect the worst.
Then you wont turn into too bad of a whiney fanboy.
Works for me.
Owen or Law will be Dent....prepare....
Herr Logan
10-17-2006, 08:16 PM
I'll take "whiney fanboy" over "sycophantic sheep" any day. Have a nice day.
:wolverine
MechaOrga
10-17-2006, 08:58 PM
I'll take "whiney fanboy" over "sycophantic sheep" any day. Have a nice day.
:wolverine
You know what? i will have a nice day lol!
bahhhhhh........
oh one more thing herr logan.there's nothing sheepish about being hopeful, well educated but realistic fanboy. But here I am getting into a debate with a disembodied voice on my mac.
You know what? I'm gonna stop this. I feel dirty already and ive only been posting for like 2 days LOL!
Welcome to the Hype! LOL!
Owen or Law will be dent....prepare....(this is only a tag):cwink:
The thing about the suit that always bothered me was the bending of the arm pit area when he wasnt standing up straight(which was often). And sometimes his face looked a little smooshed in the cowl but what you gonna do?...
All in all i think its the best costume to date but it can be improved and should.
IMO just a slimming down of the fabric. I mean if you have a costume made like Spiderman's or Supes and you tell me, an audience member, that its Kevlar, stops "everything but a straight shot", and "it'll stop a knife", you know what, I'm gonna believe you.As long as Film makers set up rules and dont break them, audience members will go along with it. it doesnt have to be an inch an a half thick to make me believe its supa-armour.
Now if it was thick cuz bale looked to thin in any other fabric and not intimidating, then well rubber it is! LOL
Just my 2 cents
Oh and Davidyr1 you do great work. I'm a new poster but ive been watching your stuff on the boards and am very very impressed.
Owen or Law will be Dent.....Heed the warning....
Hits the nail right on the head, .......dead center.
The necessity that gave birth to the rubber suit concept replete with enhanced muscular padding was the unimpressive and totally un Batman-like physique of Michael keaton; plain and simple. Unfortunately it has become the bat-suit standard to date.
Bathead
10-18-2006, 09:47 AM
^^Exactly right. Can you imagine if they had given him a cloth suit? It would have looked ridiculous, and not because of the suit, but because of Keaton's build (or lack thereof). it would have been totally unbelivable. At least half the reason he was even remotely convicning was because of the suit. If Burton had botherd to cast someone more physically appropriate, and used a cloth type suit, we wouldn't be having all these arguments about cloth vs. rubber.
BatScot
10-18-2006, 09:52 AM
The necessity that gave birth to the rubber suit concept replete with enhanced muscular padding was the unimpressive and totally un Batman-like physique of Michael keaton; plian and simple. Unfortunately it has become the bat-suit standard to date.While that is true, Bale, unlike Keaton, wasn't 'too thin'. In fact, if there was any issue with Bale’s physique it was that he was too big. So any inference that Bale needed a 'padded suit' doesn't hold.
Chris Wallace
10-18-2006, 09:59 AM
Burton is, first off, not a comic fan, so keep that in mind. He found Batman appealing b/c of the whole dark angle, which should be obvious based on his subsequent films. So he doesn't care about giving fanboys what they want.
He cast Keaton based on his performance, not his looks.
Bathead
10-18-2006, 09:59 AM
The argument isn't that Bale "needed" (he didn't) the muscle suit, It's that it is now (because of Burton and Schumacher) considered standard issue for a movie Batman, As is evidenced by all those who insist it's the only kind of suit that "works" in movies. Which I don't buy in the least.
Crooklyn
10-18-2006, 12:20 PM
Burton is, first off, not a comic fan, so keep that in mind.
Neither was Nolan. Nor Bale. Or hell, even the whole cast.
He found Batman appealing b/c of the whole dark angle, which should be obvious based on his subsequent films.
And Nolan found Batman's inner struggle/duality interesting, as evidenced by it's focus in BB.
He cast Keaton based on his performance, not his looks.
As it should be.
Crooklyn
10-18-2006, 12:20 PM
The argument isn't that Bale "needed" (he didn't) the muscle suit, It's that it is now (because of Burton and Schumacher) considered standard issue for a movie Batman, As is evidenced by all those who insist it's the only kind of suit that "works" in movies. Which I don't buy in the least.
Yeah, such narrow-minded people. Bet half these guys wouldn't even be complaining had Nolan chose it in the first place. :o
The argument isn't that Bale "needed" (he didn't) the muscle suit, It's that it is now (because of Burton and Schumacher) considered standard issue for a movie Batman, As is evidenced by all those who insist it's the only kind of suit that "works" in movies. Which I don't buy in the least.
Exactly, and that pitiful super-hero rubber suit standard also crept into the "Flash" TV series. Can someone explain to me other than a narrow minded adherence to the rubber-rule, why The Flash needed to be in that type of costume? Thank heavens for Raimi, and his Spider-Man suit.
Saint
10-18-2006, 02:49 PM
The Flash costume wasn't rubber. It was padded, but not rubber.
Substance D
10-18-2006, 02:58 PM
batman should look like this:
http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/355/mybatmanlargetg7.jpg
cryptic name
10-18-2006, 03:00 PM
Exactly, and that pitiful super-hero rubber suit standard also crept into the "Flash" TV series. Can someone explain to me other than a narrow minded adherence to the rubber-rule, why The Flash needed to be in that type of costume? Thank heavens for Raimi, and his Spider-Man suit.
the flash tv show stated that the body suit was a russian prototype designed for deep sea diving. it could withstand tremendous pressure and the friction placed on clothing by the speeds barry allen ran at. also, in the context of the show, the suit was not sculpted rubber, but a space age material that adhered itself like a second skin, those were meant to represents his "real" muscles. last but not least, that suit looked damn good, especially for a tv show.
The Flash costume wasn't rubber. It was padded, but not rubber.
You may be correct, as the appearance of the costume is not obviously rubber, but it is my belief that the molded rubber suit was enhanced by some kind of cloth like flocking.
Saint
10-18-2006, 05:16 PM
It's not the outer cloth that i was talking abiout. The padding simply could not have been rubber--it moved far to well. Watch the show. Whatever the padding was, it was NOT rubber.
Thespiralgoeson
10-18-2006, 05:54 PM
batman should look like this:
http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/355/mybatmanlargetg7.jpg
No thanks, I'd rather Batman not look like a bruised turd.
lujho
10-18-2006, 07:01 PM
The Flash costume wasn't rubber. It was padded, but not rubber.
It was as rubber as the Batman suits really. It was sculpted and one-layered (and came in only 4 separate pieces - top, bottom (join hidden by the belt) and gloves). It wasn't a padded suit with a layer of cloth, it was a sculpted suit (of foam rubber) with a coating of flocking, which is why it had sharp, defined detail as opposed to the vague smoothness of a cloth-over-padding suit (Superman, Spider-Man, Fantastic 4).
The reason it moved so well is probably because it was foam rubber - i.e. spongey and aerated. You could never use such foam on an unflocked batsuit because the light rubber doesn't have smooth cosmetic surface it would need. The flocking allowed them to use such a foam because it hid the surface.
It actually looked quite ratty a lot of the time in the show - it didn't hold up well to wear because the flocking would crack/wear at the joints.
The live-action Tick costume is the other Superhero costume that is closest in nature to the Flash one, only it is unflocked and smooth-surfaced.
The Flash's cowl shape was great though, Batman's could stand to be more like it as far as mobility, sleekness and a large mouth-hole goes.
Revolver_Ocelot
10-18-2006, 07:27 PM
batman should look like this:
http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/355/mybatmanlargetg7.jpg
Nah, I like my Batman with a chin
ROBOCOP CPU001
10-18-2006, 08:26 PM
right substance..
you keep trying to provoke me..i will see to it you are ****ing banned!
Crooklyn
10-18-2006, 09:00 PM
Let me guess, that's you in that pic. :o
ROBOCOP CPU001
10-18-2006, 10:15 PM
yes..
:(
sad isn't it.
Black Mamba
10-19-2006, 01:11 AM
Very...
Black Mamba
10-19-2006, 01:19 AM
Neither was Nolan. Nor Bale. Or hell, even the whole cast.
Bale admitted on many occasion he got into the graphic novels after a friend lent them to him a few years back. He also carried the graphic novels around with him on the set, to maintain the essence and characterization from the books. Not to mention, Bale was the one actively pursuing the role of Bruce Wayne, dating all the way back to the Aronofsky Batman Year One movie.
Nolan wasn't a fan per se of the "comics", but unlike Burton he knew the core of the character, and was a fan of the character. Burton kind of stumbled into his job as a director of a Batman movie. And he didn't have a full understanding of the character, and his mythos. Nolan also knew how the best way to present the character to an audience, in a relatable manner. Nolan being a fan of the comics is irrelevant, because he did his research and drew specifically from landmark Batman stories, in order to create such a Batman story that made it feel like a graphic novel itself. Burton did none of that, and didn't hold a great deal of admiration for the source material.
Crooklyn
10-19-2006, 01:31 AM
The keyword was "fan". Not casual admirer of the character. I agree with what you said, but I still wasn't wrong. :o
Black Mamba
10-19-2006, 03:35 AM
No, you were wrong. What exactly constitutes a 'fan' as compared to a 'casual admirer'? Reading the monthly Batman comic? Or being a fan of Batman in all media? Reading a few stories, etc. Doesn't that mean you are a fan of the character?
Nolan and Bale's precise wording was that they were "fans" of the character. So yes, they were fans. What exactly would be a 'casual admirer of the character'? I don't read the Batman comic regularly. Hell, I hardly read it at all. But I am a huge fan of the character. Same goes for Christian Bale, and Chris Nolan.
No, you were wrong. What exactly constitutes a 'fan' as compared to a 'casual admirer'? Reading the monthly Batman comic? Or being a fan of Batman in all media? Reading a few stories, etc. Doesn't that mean you are a fan of the character?
Nolan and Bale's precise wording was that they were "fans" of the character. So yes, they were fans. What exactly would be a 'casual admirer of the character'? I don't read the Batman comic regularly. Hell, I hardly read it at all. But I am a huge fan of the character. Same goes for Christian Bale, and Chris Nolan.
Quite simply "fan" is short for fanatic, and a "casual admirer" is not a fanatic.
Crooklyn
10-19-2006, 11:02 AM
^^ Thank you.
If you want it in different terms; music fans. You ask someone, "do you listen to _____", and if they say "oh I've heard 3 or 4 songs, I like them" then they are just casual listeners. However, if you ask another and they say, "yeah man, I got 6 of their albums and a lot of their underground stuff too"...then they are a fan.
So yes, in order to be a fan-atic, I'd say you do have to have a certain knowledge of the characters, but also be reading/watching the stories (whether it be on tv or comics). After all, you can't really call yourself a fan just because you "like them". You'd have to have a basis for that interest. That's where engulfing yourself in the mythos comes in.
Bale and Nolan were fans of the character. Even then, that's still a far cry from being fans of the comic books that includes the character, but also comes with the various stories and villains.
Black Mamba
10-19-2006, 11:04 AM
Is there not different extents and levels to "fandom"? Fan is usually used now for people who are just that. You don't have to be a 'fanatic' to be considered a 'fan' in terms of how the word is used among people. When do you ever hear someone say they are a 'casual admirer' of a character?
Black Mamba
10-19-2006, 11:08 AM
Bale and Nolan were fans of the character.
That's exactly what I said, son. I didn't say they are fan of the comic books. Like they go into a comic store every week and chat it up with the dorks, while buying that month's title. But they most definetely were fans enough to create their own vision of the character, present it to Warner Bros, and heavily pursure a job in making a Batman story, and signing a contract promising to make 3 films of said character and mythos. They are most definetely fans of the character. That isn't just a 'casual interest'. Reading all the different comic books ... not so much, but that doesn't constitute not being a "fan".
You'd have to have a basis for that interest. That's where engulfing yourself in the mythos comes in.
Who says your base has to be in the comics? He's engulfed in his own work ON BATMAN, if anything that constitutes him as a fan. A fan who reads the major stories of Batman, and has a lock and understanding of the character. Bale included. To say they aren't fans of Batman and the mythos is a blatant lie.
Crooklyn
10-19-2006, 11:14 AM
That's exactly what I said, son. I didn't say they are fan of the comic books.
Lol, ok bruh. Let me bring it back for a minute...
Burton is, first off, not a comic fan, so keep that in mind.
Neither was Nolan. Nor Bale. Or hell, even the whole cast.
So, as we just agreed that neither Nolan nor Bale were comic book fans, and the person I was replying to mentioned JUST comic book fans...how is my statement wrong again? :o
Crooklyn
10-19-2006, 11:22 AM
Who says your base has to be in the comics?
I thought I made it a point to say not just comics, but movies, tv, or anything else featuring the character. :huh:
He's engulfed in his own work ON BATMAN, if anything that constitutes him as a fan. A fan who reads the major stories of Batman, and has a lock and understanding of the character. Bale included. To say they aren't fans of Batman and the mythos is a blatant lie.
Again, they are still fans of the character. What did they read: Y1, TKJ, LH, DV, and AA? Yes, they have an understanding of the character, but those stories cover so little of Batman, no matter how good of a stories they are.
I'll bring up the music thing once more. Someone that listens to a certain number of an artist's songs, say like, 4 or 5. And these songs were on the first album of this artist. This artist blows up, makes 8 more albums. But the listener stays on those 4 or 5 songs...is he as much of a listener compared to those that have followed the artist consistently over the years? I wouldn't think so imo.
You'd have to do more than just read the basic groundwork stories of the character. To be a fan of the mythos, yes I do believe you'd have to expand your horizons on that front. But that's not to say I have a problem with Nolan and Bale at all. I'm quite satisfied that they at least read these stories. All that's really needed is they understand the characters they are adapting, they don't necessarily have to be a comic book fan.
Black Mamba
10-19-2006, 11:52 AM
I get where you're comming from, with the music artist analogy... but I would still consider Bale and Nolan fans of the character, and even to an extent the comic book. What previous director/actor combo even took the time to read A story, let alone 5-6 different graphic novels? And enjoyed it ontop of that, and admitted it in public? I don't think it is fair to say Nolan/Bale aren't a fan of the comic, just because they don't read it continually. To me, that doesn't justify not calling them a fan. They just aren't crazy and obsessed enough to read an 8 page snippet of a larger story, every month. I love Batman, and I wouldn't do that either.
Chris Wallace
10-19-2006, 01:10 PM
Neither was Nolan. Nor Bale. Or hell, even the whole cast.
And Nolan found Batman's inner struggle/duality interesting, as evidenced by it's focus in BB.
As it should be.
Don't fall under the mistaken impression that I dislike Keaton, his performance, or the movie. I have a whole thread on "Why there will never be a better Batman than Keaton". I am simply stating facts here, w/regard to why he was chosen.
Mr. Socko
10-19-2006, 01:14 PM
The cowl shouldn't cover the chin like in Begins.
Chris Wallace
10-19-2006, 01:14 PM
The Flash costume wasn't rubber. It was padded, but not rubber.
True, but I think it was very clearly modeled on the Keaton Batsuit. In addition to all the other attempts to ride Batman's coattails ("I came from you! You made me, when you killed my brother!")
The suit set a bad precedent in some ways, not just w/Batman's franchise. It affected the way Hollywood looks at superhero costumes across the board. Some benefited, many did not.
True, but I think it was very clearly modeled on the Keaton Batsuit. In addition to all the other attempts to ride Batman's coattails ("I came from you! You made me, when you killed my brother!")
The suit set a bad precedent in some ways, not just w/Batman's franchise. It affected the way Hollywood looks at superhero costumes across the board. Some benefited, many did not.
One comes immediately to mind.......How do you put Bat-nipples on a cloth suit?:yay:
Crooklyn
10-19-2006, 03:50 PM
I get where you're comming from, with the music artist analogy... but I would still consider Bale and Nolan fans of the character, and even to an extent the comic book. What previous director/actor combo even took the time to read A story, let alone 5-6 different graphic novels? And enjoyed it ontop of that, and admitted it in public? I don't think it is fair to say Nolan/Bale aren't a fan of the comic, just because they don't read it continually. To me, that doesn't justify not calling them a fan. They just aren't crazy and obsessed enough to read an 8 page snippet of a larger story, every month. I love Batman, and I wouldn't do that either.
Like I said before, I have no problem with Nolan and Bale just reading a few stories. It's not necessary when you're making your own story anyway, so the only benefits is understanding more of the character.
Yes, they're fans. Of the character. Not so much the comics however. And I'll stand firmly behind that statement because I truly believe you can't be a comic fan if you've read so little. But otherwise, I agree with you. :up:
Don't fall under the mistaken impression that I dislike Keaton, his performance, or the movie. I have a whole thread on "Why there will never be a better Batman than Keaton". I am simply stating facts here, w/regard to why he was chosen.
Understood, I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with you, just to make that clear.
not_a_victim
10-19-2006, 05:05 PM
One approach I think they should try is to go for the anmiated series look, as far as musculature goes. Take this picture for example:http://www.worldsfinestonline.com/WF/batman/btas/episodes/demonsquestp2/03.jpg
Not only is the suit charcoal grey, but it shows almost NO muscles, yet it still looks like batman is a big tough guy. The whole series was like that; little to no musculature, and it worked. So maybe for the Dark Knight they could take off all rubber peaces on the stomach and just portray Batman without muscles, but instead have the shear size of Bale (who I'm sure will be much more pumped up for the next movie) compensate for the lack f depicted muscles on the suite. Just a thought.
Uh...Yeah, because that's a cartoon. It's stylized, not photorealistic. It's a drarwing...
not_a_victim
10-19-2006, 05:09 PM
he doesn't look fat in dead end. you can see his abs through the spandex. how does that make him look fat?
I think his shortness combined with how thick his limbs are made him look kinda, "teh puffy." (I can't believe I did that.) By no means is Bertram fat. He's just a short, muscular guy.
lujho
10-19-2006, 05:32 PM
Uh...Yeah, because that's a cartoon. It's stylized, not photorealistic. It's a drarwing...
But the way the suit over the musculature is drawn in those cartoons is far more true to life than the bodypainted nudes you see in most comics.
num1batfan
10-19-2006, 10:46 PM
i think they shuld definitely modefy the costume.
my idea:
loose the cape. put grapplng hook shooters on his wrists.
Crooklyn
10-19-2006, 11:01 PM
Was that a typo? Did you mean "lose" the cape?
i think they shuld definitely modefy the costume.
my idea:
loose the cape. put grapplng hook shooters on his wrists.
LMAO. So SpiderBatMan, basically.
R-Taco
10-19-2006, 11:45 PM
Personally, I wouldn't mind if the armor was lightened up or completely removed. I mean, he goes through all that training and just uses extra doohickies to get the job done?
Batman's suit needs to be worked on a lot in order for it to work in live action. I know it's too late for this design (since it would be a 'downgrade' from the last film's suit), but I really wish that this look could've made it onto the big screen:
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/36677401/
I've heard people say that they dislike this design, but I'd prefer it to the (what I consider) goofy-looking armor from Begins.
Chris Wallace
10-20-2006, 09:30 AM
LMAO. So SpiderBatMan, basically.
Give him lenses & a full-face mask while you're at it.
Substance D
10-20-2006, 09:42 AM
Personally, I wouldn't mind if the armor was lightened up or completely removed. I mean, he goes through all that training and just uses extra doohickies to get the job done?
Batman's suit needs to be worked on a lot in order for it to work in live action. I know it's too late for this design (since it would be a 'downgrade' from the last film's suit), but I really wish that this look could've made it onto the big screen:
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/36677401/
I've heard people say that they dislike this design, but I'd prefer it to the (what I consider) goofy-looking armor from Begins.
are you ****ing kidding, or are you the artist trying to promote your own work?
anyways, they should go with this design, except with a mouth opening and gauntlets or gloves:
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h209/chiboyz/batman.jpg
Personally, I wouldn't mind if the armor was lightened up or completely removed. I mean, he goes through all that training and just uses extra doohickies to get the job done?
Batman's suit needs to be worked on a lot in order for it to work in live action. I know it's too late for this design (since it would be a 'downgrade' from the last film's suit), but I really wish that this look could've made it onto the big screen:
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/36677401/
I've heard people say that they dislike this design, but I'd prefer it to the (what I consider) goofy-looking armor from Begins.
....A trench coat :dry:.
Gentlemen,may I present The Batman.....
http://www.kolbyjukes.com/images/work/batman/Region.jpg
explode7
10-20-2006, 01:01 PM
Man thats gay.
Substance D
10-20-2006, 01:11 PM
why does he wear his underwear on the outside?
explode7
10-20-2006, 01:13 PM
Because he is imitating superman and probably trying to look queer as well.
Substance D
10-20-2006, 01:30 PM
superman's outfit was based off a circus performer's. glad the fans want batman to be wearing circus clothes.
explode7
10-20-2006, 01:34 PM
I never said I wanted it. Get your facts in order please:mad:
Substance D
10-20-2006, 01:36 PM
I never said I wanted it. Get your facts in order please:mad:
nah, i'm just supporting your point, dork.
explode7
10-20-2006, 01:39 PM
Says the noob.
Substance D
10-20-2006, 01:43 PM
Says the noob.
**** you
cryptic name
10-20-2006, 01:44 PM
Gentlemen,may I present The Batman.....
http://www.kolbyjukes.com/images/work/batman/Region.jpg
this is batman.if you think this looks gay, you think batman looks gay. you're not fans
Are you two done bickering?
explode7
10-20-2006, 01:47 PM
That isn't batman thats just one fan's opinion of him.
...How is that not Batman? That's practically identical to the comic book image :huh:.
explode7
10-20-2006, 01:51 PM
Really? If thats one comic book interpretation of Batman then I aint buying.
Really? If thats one comic book interpretation of Batman then I aint buying.
......
Black cowl.
Black cape.
Black bat emblem.
Black goves with three scallops.
Black boots.
Black trunks.
Gray bodysuit.
Pouched belt.
:huh:???
explode7
10-20-2006, 01:55 PM
I prefer him without the gay underwear outside thing.
Substance D
10-20-2006, 01:55 PM
...How is that not Batman? That's practically identical to the comic book image :huh:.
except it's not a drawing, it looks like real man in underwear. there is a different between a drawing and a person wearing a costume. quit being stupid and look at things.
I prefer him without the gay underwear outside thing.
So basically you don't like Batman's classic look; the look he's had for over sixty years.
:dry:
except it's not a drawing, it looks like real man in underwear. there is a different between a drawing and a person wearing a costume. quit being stupid and look at things.
Says the newb :yay:.
Substance D
10-20-2006, 01:57 PM
......
Black cowl.
Black cape.
Black bat emblem.
Black goves with three scallops.
Black boots.
Black trunks.
Gray bodysuit.
Pouched belt.
:huh:???
i love how the underwear defenders call them trunks thinking it's going to make them less ridiculous looking. LOL.
i love how the underwear defenders call them trunks thinking it's going to make them less ridiculous looking. LOL.
Not really. He wears it over the rest of his suit. It's not "underwear" by definition.
Play again.
BatScot
10-20-2006, 02:00 PM
Really? If thats one comic book interpretation of Batman then I aint buying.Then one can only presume then that you buy only the comics where Batman is dressed in blue... now that's a Batman I could do without.
Substance D
10-20-2006, 02:01 PM
Not really. He wears it over the rest of his suit. It's not "underwear" by definition.
Play again.
LOL, u got me there!
batman44
10-20-2006, 02:01 PM
Not really. He wears it over the rest of his suit. It's not "underwear" by definition.
Play again.
:up:yep.
BatScot
10-20-2006, 02:01 PM
i love how the underwear defenders call them trunks thinking it's going to make them less ridiculous looking. LOL.You do realize that the Begins suit is underwear, don't you?
Substance D
10-20-2006, 02:03 PM
You do realize that the Begins suit is underwear, don't you?
it would be really uncomfortable to wear an armoured wetsuit under clothing.
They're briefs, not trunks.:o
Yeah that's probably a better term to use.
except it's not a drawing, it looks like real man in underwear. there is a different between a drawing and a person wearing a costume. quit being stupid and look at things.
Its a computer generated 3D Graphic model.
Substance D
10-20-2006, 02:12 PM
Its a computer generated 3D Graphic model.
yeah, but it looks like a real guy. it's not stylized.
cryptic name
10-20-2006, 02:20 PM
Not really. He wears it over the rest of his suit. It's not "underwear" by definition.
Play again.
:woot:
Then one can only presume then that you buy only the comics where Batman is dressed in blue... now that's a Batman I could do without.
Dark blue, would work.
Mybe it's my eyesight but have you ever had to hold a pair of slacks under bright light to determine whether they are in fact black or dark(navy)blue.
yeah, but it looks like a real guy. it's not stylized.
It isn't? Exactly how is it not styled like a bat-suit?
BatScot
10-20-2006, 02:31 PM
it would be really uncomfortable to wear an armoured wetsuit under clothing.And yet that is the very intent one must presume.
The batsuit is based on the Nomex Survival Suit for Advanced Infantry. Infantry being the operative word here. Infantry personnel wear BDU relative to the field of operations. Since the NSSAI does not fulfill this capacity—having no inherent camouflage capabilities of its own—one must presume that a BDU is worn over the NSSAI otherwise the infantry would not be combat ready.
And so by extension of your “underwear” analogy, it is fair then to consider the Begins suit as a pair of long-johns. So there you have it—trunks or long-johns—underwear is underwear.
Substance D
10-20-2006, 02:43 PM
And yet that is the very intent one must presume.
The batsuit is based on the Nomex Survival Suit for Advanced Infantry. Infantry being the operative word here. Infantry personnel wear BDU relative to the field of operations. Since the NSSAI does not fulfill this capacity—having no inherent camouflage capabilities of its own—one must presume that a BDU is worn over the NSSAI otherwise the infantry would not be combat ready.
And so by extension of your “underwear” analogy, it is fair then to consider the Begins suit as a pair of long-johns. So there you have it—trunks or long-johns—underwear is underwear.
nope, you're just assuming all that without any factual evidence. the armoured suit was a prototype, not the finished product taken into battle. who knows, maybe they would add camo to later on, just like bruce painting over it with black. wouldn't that save them money, having everything all in one, instead of paying for more stuff to go over it?
and you take everything too literally. get a sense of humor.
BatScot
10-20-2006, 03:07 PM
Mybe it's my eyesight but have you ever had to hold a pair of slacks under bright light to determine whether they are in fact black or dark(navy)blue.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Batman-JimLee2.jpg
I see black here, and I see blue, but I do not mistake one for the other.
Bathead
10-20-2006, 03:17 PM
Try Navy Blue, it's as about as dark a blue you can get just short of being black. You do indeed need to view it under a light to tell the difference.
^Certainly no room for argument in that illustration, but the difference between a dark blue and black would be minimal.
BatScot
10-20-2006, 03:42 PM
nope, you're just assuming all that without any factual evidence. the armoured suit was a prototype, not the finished product taken into battle. who knows, maybe they would add camo to later on, just like bruce painting over it with black. Ah, so it’s one assumption vs. another, well alright...
… wouldn't that save them money, having everything all in one, instead of paying for more stuff to go over it? Nope. BDUs are cheap. NSSAI are expensive, and repainting an NSSAI for each combat environment only adds to that cost, especially considering that the NSSAI would need to be sent to a special facility to be repainted whereas a BDU could be easily deployed to the field. As a result, the cheaper—and more effective method—would be to outfit personnel with a standard NSSAI then augment that with a BDU relevant to the field of operations.
BatScot
10-20-2006, 03:47 PM
^^ It's not about the blue... it's about the black ;)
Shedhut
10-27-2006, 10:50 AM
I wasnt really interested in this thread but then I remembered one thing which was unacceptable with the Begins suit: THE CAPE :o
Let me get it straight. The cape was among the things nobody really complained about (except the clasps) but imho it has one major flaw:
It was not waterproof!
You can particularly see it in the scene where Batman is thrown off the building by Crane. He lands on the ground and his cape seems to be soaked in water. I mean, it looked visually cool and stuff but it is not right that if Bats is coming through rain he has to carry 10 pound additional weight from the water soaked in his cape.
what ya'll think about?
Bathead
10-27-2006, 03:29 PM
The cape not being waterproof? Not a big deal.
CConn
10-27-2006, 03:40 PM
Y'know, I think the only thing the BB cape really...lacked was sort of the leathery, batwing-like look of the B89 suit's cape. I mean, that ****er might've weighed 100 pounds, but it looked ominous and organic and...real.
Jasomius
10-27-2006, 03:57 PM
Y'know, I think the only thing the BB cape really...lacked was sort of the leathery, batwing-like look of the B89 suit's cape. I mean, that ****er might've weighed 100 pounds, but it looked ominous and organic and...real.It has always been my opinion that style over substance works for Batman. He is the James Bond of superheroes.
Thespiralgoeson
10-27-2006, 04:02 PM
It has always been my opinion that style over substance works for Batman. He is the James Bond of superheroes.
Batman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> James Bond.
Batman is about style AND substance. Otherwise, he's just not Batman.
batman44
10-27-2006, 04:07 PM
Y'know, I think the only thing the BB cape really...lacked was sort of the leathery, batwing-like look of the B89 suit's cape. I mean, that ****er might've weighed 100 pounds, but it looked ominous and organic and...real.
that and the lack of scallops.
Chris Wallace
10-27-2006, 04:26 PM
It was scalloped; it's just not as readily apparent in a cloth cape.
Bathead
10-27-2006, 05:35 PM
It was scalloped; it's just not as readily apparent in a cloth cape.
It's not just because it's cloth, it's because the scallops on the BB cape were shallower, wider and fewer in number. When the cape was "relaxed" and just hanging off Batman's shoulders the scallops were not noticeable. Having said that, I wish they were more obvious. It just doesn't look right otherwise.
Jasomius
10-28-2006, 07:54 AM
Batman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> James Bond.
Batman is about style AND substance. Otherwise, he's just not Batman.Batman Begins went over the top with substance IMO.
Bathead
10-28-2006, 06:07 PM
You have a problem with substance? That's a new one.
StorminNorman
10-28-2006, 06:34 PM
Batman Begins went over the top with substance IMO.
Yes - because Batman films should be all about action, flashy gadgets and neon lights.
http://www.moviebazaar.de/filmbat4.jpg
Saint
10-28-2006, 06:54 PM
The "If you don't like Begins you must love Schumacher" mentality around here is freaking stupid, and this is coming from someone who loved Begins. Peddling such childish false dilemmas only makes you look dumb.
explode7
10-28-2006, 07:01 PM
Tell them saint.
StorminNorman
10-28-2006, 07:21 PM
The "If you don't like Begins you must love Schumacher" mentality around here is freaking stupid, and this is coming from someone who loved Begins. Peddling such childish false dilemmas only makes you look dumb.
He was not simply saying he did not like Begins, but saying Begins had "too much substance". Well sorry, but that argument is silly. Bruce Wayne is a complex cookie - which is his appeal as a character.
Nolan nailed that. Burton nailed that.
Schumacher's films were an example of a film that took the substance out of Batman.
explode7
10-28-2006, 07:26 PM
^Thats an opinion.
StorminNorman
10-28-2006, 07:36 PM
^Thats an opinion.
Whats the opinion?
That Bruce Wayne is a complex character?
That Batman Begins portrayed Bruce as a complex character?
That Burton portrayed Bruce Wayne as a complex character?
That Schumacher did NOT portray Bruce Wayne as a complex character?
I guess, technically they ARE opinions, but they are fairly universally accepted opinions. :huh:
explode7
10-28-2006, 07:40 PM
But opinions nonetheless and is no better than anyone elses.
StorminNorman
10-28-2006, 07:45 PM
But opinions nonetheless and is no better than anyone elses.
So are you trying to say that:
Bruce Wayne is NOT a complex character?
That Batman Begins, Batman 89 and Batman Returns did not treat him as such, compared to the Batman tragedies of Batman Forever and Batman and Robin?
That is like saying "Batman and Robin is the best Batman film" - sure its an opinion and in theory it should have no more value than those who liked Nolan's or Burton's Batman films - however that doesn't stop it from being near universally accepted as an idiototic statement.
Saint
10-29-2006, 12:38 AM
He was not simply saying he did not like Begins, but saying Begins had "too much substance". Well sorry, but that argument is silly. Bruce Wayne is a complex cookie - which is his appeal as a character.
Nolan nailed that. Burton nailed that.
Schumacher's films were an example of a film that took the substance out of Batman.
That is not how I read his post. If you follow the discussion--which was actually about the cape and how the unrealistic, weighty Burton cape was better or worse than the light, feasible Nolan cape--the word substance is really referring to the level of reality, not character depth or quality of plotting. Indeed, as I read it, the poster was saying that Nolan sacrificed certain visual flairs in favour of a more realistic approach (he perhaps did not word this as best he could have). I don't agree (I loved the Begins cape, actually), but I understand the complaint and your contention that he must love Scuhmacher if he doesn't love Begins is, as I said, a false dilemma and nothing more.
Thespiralgoeson
10-29-2006, 02:04 AM
Whats the opinion?
That Bruce Wayne is a complex character?
That Batman Begins portrayed Bruce as a complex character?
That Burton portrayed Bruce Wayne as a complex character?
That Schumacher did NOT portray Bruce Wayne as a complex character?
I guess, technically they ARE opinions, but they are fairly universally accepted opinions. :huh:
In B&R, I agree. In Forever, OTOH, Bruce was a pretty complex dude.
Jasomius
10-29-2006, 03:53 AM
That is not how I read his post. If you follow the discussion--which was actually about the cape and how the unrealistic, weighty Burton cape was better or worse than the light, feasible Nolan cape--the word substance is really referring to the level of reality, not character depth or quality of plotting. Indeed, as I read it, the poster was saying that Nolan sacrificed certain visual flairs in favour of a more realistic approach (he perhaps did not word this as best he could have). I don't agree (I loved the Begins cape, actually), but I understand the complaint and your contention that he must love Scuhmacher if he doesn't love Begins is, as I said, a false dilemma and nothing more.Yes, exactly right.
It is unfortunate that fans feel such devotion towards Begins that every complaint must be scrutinised, I still feel Begins is a good film, but I prefer Burton's take on the visual style and world of Batman in Batman 89.
I hope Nolan won't sacrifice what makes the Joker great in TDK for the sake of 'realism'.
Fenrir
10-29-2006, 06:30 AM
In B&R, I agree. In Forever, OTOH, Bruce was a pretty complex dude.
He had some depth is B&R as well. He kept reminiscing about his childhood days with Alfred and even showed some elements of the a-hole Batman in terms of leadership with his "my way or the highway" demeanor with Robin. Sure, the film was killer campfest but it had a bare few moments that wouldn't look out of place in a good Batman film.
kenellard
10-29-2006, 06:59 AM
In B&R, I agree. In Forever, OTOH, Bruce was a pretty complex dude.
I was just about to say the same thing. In certain ways I think schumacher brought home the sense of bruce being emotionally damaged and affected by his parents death better than Nolan. I like to think of Kilmer as the best Bruce Wayne of the series, somewhere between Keatons neurotic/depressed shut-in and Bales faux-playboy
Fenrir
10-29-2006, 07:27 AM
I was just about to say the same thing. In certain ways I think schumacher brought home the sense of bruce being emotionally damaged and affected by his parents death better than Nolan. I like to think of Kilmer as the best Bruce Wayne of the series, somewhere between Keatons neurotic/depressed shut-in and Bales faux-playboy
Now this is just as much a dumb thing to say as implying Schumacher's Bruce Wayne had no complexity to him. :down::rolleyes:
Yeah I mean sure, Bale's Bruce Wayne harboring vengeful feelings towards Chill since his childhood till it comes to the point that he starts hating his own inheritance with nothing on his mind except to kill Chill wasn't "emotionally damaged" enough for you eh? Adding to that his survivor's guilt of holding himself responsible for their deaths as well and that he spent seven years in exile trying to understand the criminal mind, face his worst fears and ultimately, seeking the means to fight injustice. Yup, Bale's Bruce Wayne was a "faux-playboy" alright. I'm sure he hit it off real good with them hot dames concealed in the bowel's Ra's monastery. :up:
And the reason why Kilmer's Batman appeared more damaged was because of his arc in the trilogy. In the first one he was more focused, more obsessed while in the second was he was a bit more relaxed. His "mission" was more like routine. He didn't had that edge to him. In Batman Forever, he was meant to come full circle. He started losing sight of his goal and it's importance diminishing. That's why he started having those nightmares - his subconscious constantly reminding him of his purpose in life.
Since Bale's Bruce Wayne/Batman already had such a good start, I'm pretty sure he'll get an even deeper arc around the third film that can easily surpass Kilmer's.
Jasomius
10-29-2006, 10:14 AM
Now this is just as much a dumb thing to say as implying Schumacher's Bruce Wayne had no complexity to him. :down::rolleyes:
Yeah I mean sure, Bale's Bruce Wayne harboring vengeful feelings towards Chill since his childhood till it comes to the point that he starts hating his own inheritance with nothing on his mind except to kill Chill wasn't "emotionally damaged" enough for you eh? Adding to that his survivor's guilt of holding himself responsible for their deaths as well and that he spent seven years in exile trying to understand the criminal mind, face his worst fears and ultimately, seeking the means to fight injustice. Yup, Bale's Bruce Wayne was a "faux-playboy" alright. I'm sure he hit it off real good with them hot dames concealed in the bowel's Ra's monastery. :up:
And the reason why Kilmer's Batman appeared more damaged was because of his arc in the trilogy. In the first one he was more focused, more obsessed while in the second was he was a bit more relaxed. His "mission" was more like routine. He didn't had that edge to him. In Batman Forever, he was meant to come full circle. He started losing sight of his goal and it's importance diminishing. That's why he started having those nightmares - his subconscious constantly reminding him of his purpose in life.
Since Bale's Bruce Wayne/Batman already had such a good start, I'm pretty sure he'll get an even deeper arc around the third film that can easily surpass Kilmer's.I think you completely misinterpreted what he said..
Fenrir
10-29-2006, 10:18 AM
I think you completely misinterpreted what he said..
From what he was implying, I think it seemed pretty clear that the defining element of Bale's Bruce Wayne was only his playboy charade and that his Bruce apparently wasn't emotionally scarred enough by the death of his parents, even though Nolan spent a great deal more time on that than Schumacher did.
Jasomius
10-29-2006, 10:33 AM
From what he was implying, I think it seemed pretty clear that the defining element of Bale's Bruce Wayne was only his playboy charade and that his Bruce apparently wasn't emotionally scarred enough by the death of his parents, even though Nolan spent a great deal more time on that than Schumacher did.That's not what I got from it. I thought he was saying Kilmer's Bruce Wayne was a mixture between Keaton's supressed Wayne and Christian Bale's playboy Wayne. But he didn't mean Bale only played playboy Wayne, just that Kilmer had that in his interpretation.
kenellard
10-29-2006, 10:33 AM
Now this is just as much a dumb thing to say as implying Schumacher's Bruce Wayne had no complexity to him. :down::rolleyes:
Yeah I mean sure, Bale's Bruce Wayne harboring vengeful feelings towards Chill since his childhood till it comes to the point that he starts hating his own inheritance with nothing on his mind except to kill Chill wasn't "emotionally damaged" enough for you eh? Adding to that his survivor's guilt of holding himself responsible for their deaths as well and that he spent seven years in exile trying to understand the criminal mind, face his worst fears and ultimately, seeking the means to fight injustice. Yup, Bale's Bruce Wayne was a "faux-playboy" alright. I'm sure he hit it off real good with them hot dames concealed in the bowel's Ra's monastery. :up:
And the reason why Kilmer's Batman appeared more damaged was because of his arc in the trilogy. In the first one he was more focused, more obsessed while in the second was he was a bit more relaxed. His "mission" was more like routine. He didn't had that edge to him. In Batman Forever, he was meant to come full circle. He started losing sight of his goal and it's importance diminishing. That's why he started having those nightmares - his subconscious constantly reminding him of his purpose in life.
Since Bale's Bruce Wayne/Batman already had such a good start, I'm pretty sure he'll get an even deeper arc around the third film that can easily surpass Kilmer's.
faux
adjective: not genuine or real; being an imitation of the genuine article (Example: "Faux pearls")
DavidTyler
10-29-2006, 11:07 AM
Huh?
I completely got that Keaton, Kilmer, and Bale gave us an emotionally scarred Bruce. Keaton's version had him disoriented in day to day living (except in dealing with bad situations - then he shined). Kilmer gave us only a few scenes (I'm sure that Schumacher wasn't planning on spending too much time on obsessed Bruce) but his was the subtext of a man carrying a haunting secret. Bale, however, gave us bucketloads. The difference is that we got to see him excersizing a lot of his anger and confusion early in the movie. When he came home to become The Batman, he displayed a serious focus born of his obsession. Both Kilmer and Bale did the 'playboy' thing to differing degrees. Bale's was obviously more the tool to distract than Kilmer's. Kilmer's Bruce was obviously pursuing romance. Bale's was not. The girls were more or less window dressing to avert suspicions.
Jasomius
10-29-2006, 11:15 AM
Huh?
I completely got that Keaton, Kilmer, and Bale gave us an emotionally scarred Bruce. Keaton's version had him disoriented in day to day living (except in dealing with bad situations - then he shined). Kilmer gave us only a few scenes (I'm sure that Schumacher wasn't planning on spending too much time on obsessed Bruce) but his was the subtext of a man carrying a haunting secret. Bale, however, gave us bucketloads. The difference is that we got to see him excersizing a lot of his anger and confusion early in the movie. When he came home to become The Batman, he displayed a serious focus born of his obsession. Both Kilmer and Bale did the 'playboy' thing to differing degrees. Bale's was obviously more the tool to distract than Kilmer's. Kilmer's Bruce was obviously pursuing romance. Bale's was not. The girls were more or less window dressing to avert suspicions.Bale sure looked like he was 'pursuing' Rachel to me.
Saint
10-29-2006, 01:06 PM
I don't see how. He made not one advance for her affections. She just kept "showing up."
The Only Woj
10-29-2006, 01:19 PM
I don't see how. He made not one advance for her affections. She just kept "showing up."
I wish they hadn't gone with the "love" angle with their relationship. It didn't feel right. They seemed much more like close friends. And, really, what reason was there for Rachel to be in love with Bruce? She said she loved Bruce pre-leaving Gotham, and I don't buy it
Herr Logan
10-29-2006, 01:30 PM
I wish they hadn't gone with the "love" angle with their relationship. It didn't feel right. They seemed much more like close friends. And, really, what reason was there for Rachel to be in love with Bruce? She said she loved Bruce pre-leaving Gotham, and I don't buy it
It was a corporate decision from Warner Brothers to mandate a love interest in the movie. A very, very superfluous love interest, as predicted by people with standards for these kinds of movies.
They do this sort of thing to cater to a lower class of viewer, and those who are completely unfamiliar with the Batman. Anyone who knows anything about the version of the Batman being adapted in this film knows that a love interest in a movie (that isn't Catwoman or Talia, that is) is completely contrary to what the Batman is all about. If you had to pick one superhero who could easily go without a love interest, it is the Batman. He doesn't have time for that cutesy bull*****. He's supposed to be obsessed with his work and that alone. But I guess that sort of thing doesn't appeal to the female demographic and it takes a hell of a lot more balls to try and make work than WB has on hand. Thus, they dumbed it down.
I'm actually glad that the love interest in this movie came off so completely random, undeveloped and obviously tacked-on, because it shows definitively that there was never any need for a love interest to begin with. This was clearly lip service paid to stupid, cowardly decisions made by people who don't care about making good art or presentations that honor their source material.
:wolverine
Jasomius
10-29-2006, 02:04 PM
I don't see how. He made not one advance for her affections. She just kept "showing up."The way he was quick to try and distance himself from the two girls he was with at the hotel as soon as Rachel showed up looked like he was trying to make a better impression to me.
Also, he felt it necessary to reveal to her that he was Batman. Then at the end he looked pretty disappointed when Rachel said she can't be with him.
Saint
10-29-2006, 02:40 PM
None of that is "pursuing." Bruce may have wanted a relationship, but he never pursued it.
Jasomius
10-29-2006, 02:44 PM
None of that is "pursuing." Bruce may have wanted a relationship, but he never pursued it.I say if you are pursuing something, you want that something. I feel the conversations he had with her were his attempt at pursuing a relationship.
Saint
10-29-2006, 02:51 PM
I don't. In fact, he seemed to be rather intent on avoiding a relationship--why else would he have neglected to see her when he returned to Gotham? Why did she have to keep coming to him? As I said, he wanted the relationship, but knew he couldn't have it, so he did not pursue it.
Fenrir
10-29-2006, 03:57 PM
I don't. In fact, he seemed to be rather intent on avoiding a relationship--why else would he have neglected to see her when he returned to Gotham? Why did she have to keep coming to him? As I said, he wanted the relationship, but knew he couldn't have it, so he did not pursue it.
I don't think he "neglected" her per se. One of the first things he did upon returning to Gotham was check up on Rachel, but when he sees her kissing Finch perhaps he got the impression that she was already involved in a relationship and he didn't want to interfere. At least that's what his expression in the scene told me where he spies on her dressed as a homeless man.
lujho
10-29-2006, 05:59 PM
It was a corporate decision from Warner Brothers to mandate a love interest in the movie. A very, very superfluous love interest, as predicted by people with standards for these kinds of movies.
They do this sort of thing to cater to a lower class of viewer, and those who are completely unfamiliar with the Batman. Anyone who knows anything about the version of the Batman being adapted in this film knows that a love interest in a movie (that isn't Catwoman or Talia, that is) is completely contrary to what the Batman is all about. If you had to pick one superhero who could easily go without a love interest, it is the Batman. He doesn't have time for that cutesy bull*****. He's supposed to be obsessed with his work and that alone. But I guess that sort of thing doesn't appeal to the female demographic and it takes a hell of a lot more balls to try and make work than WB has on hand. Thus, they dumbed it down.
I'm actually glad that the love interest in this movie came off so completely random, undeveloped and obviously tacked-on, because it shows definitively that there was never any need for a love interest to begin with. This was clearly lip service paid to stupid, cowardly decisions made by people who don't care about making good art or presentations that honor their source material.
:wolverine
Amen. And apart from all those things you said, that kind of thing just takes up valuable screentime as well. Not a huge amount, but cutting Rachael alltogether could have allowed the film to breathe a bit, to have some more fluid and "relaxed" editing (the editing was choppy throughout the whole film, not just the action). Or it could have allowed Harvey Dent to be put in, like he should have been.
(that isn't Catwoman or Talia, that is) is completely contrary to what the Batman is all about. If you had to pick one superhero who could easily go without a love interest, it is the Batman
That is a load of....^
You idea of Batman is inhuman void of being a well rounded believable
character. Sorry but a Batman movie will NEVER be to the letter of
the law of a comicbook (which has many interpretations) or some
fanboys grandiose yet untranslatable idea to film.
Hollywood's version will always be collaborative interpretation.
so sit back and enjoy the ride or not.
It will never beat your personal vision.
Some concepts may some may not.
For example...Anton Furst Gotham City was a great and lasting concept
on how to interpret Gotham City.
There was some thing in every film I got.
I don't whole sale dismiss them or accept them.
The Batman I have is the best.
Im sure the same goes for the rest of you.:word:
:spidey:
:supes:
Herr Logan
10-30-2006, 06:31 PM
That is a load of....^
You idea of Batman is inhuman void of being a well rounded believable
character. Sorry but a Batman movie will NEVER be to the letter of
the law of a comicbook (which has many interpretations) or some
fanboys grandiose yet untranslatable idea to film.
Hollywood's version will always be collaborative interpretation.
so sit back and enjoy the ride or not.
It will never beat your personal vision.
Some concepts may some may not.
For example...Anton Furst Gotham City was a great and lasting concept
on how to interpret Gotham City.
There was some thing in every film I got.
I don't whole sale dismiss them or accept them.
The Batman I have is the best.
Im sure the same goes for the rest of you.:word:
:spidey:
:supes:
You're not even worth a specific response, with the ignorant, cliched, pre-fabricated message you saw fit to give me. Stick to drawing, Wams, because you can't convince or appeal to a fan with higher standards worth ****. Your lack of imagination is pathetic and precludes you from having worthwhile thoughts on how Movie!Batman's should act.
:wolverine
Herr Logan
10-30-2006, 06:50 PM
Amen. And apart from all those things you said, that kind of thing just takes up valuable screentime as well. Not a huge amount, but cutting Rachael alltogether could have allowed the film to breathe a bit, to have some more fluid and "relaxed" editing (the editing was choppy throughout the whole film, not just the action). Or it could have allowed Harvey Dent to be put in, like he should have been.
Exactly. There was no need for Rachel at all. Every single purpose she served in the movie, other than the tacked-on romantic angle (which had no place in this movie to begin with), could have been served by other characters.
The person to lecture Bruce about vengeance and the troubles of Gotham is Leslie Thompkins. She and Alfred should be the only people from before his journey abroad that had any life-changing conversations with. Leslie is a doctor who works pro bono with indigent patients in a bad part of town at a free clinic, with a big heart and much love for Bruce. There was no need to make up a fake A.D.A to serve those functions when there was a real one they could have used. Even if they were going to give him a superfluous love interest and dumb down the movie, there are better ways to construct the plot.
Harvey Dent should have been the Assistant D.A. that the Batman gave helpful information to about Falcone. The fact that they left left him out was ridiculous. I used to think that Harvey was actually an old friend of Bruce Wayne's, because of TAS, but he wasn't. He was the Batman's friend-- the first ally besides Alfred the Batman had. That's how it should have been, as hinted in Year One, where the Batman is shown hiding in his office while Gordon is questioning Dent about him.
Thinking about Leslie Thompkins reminds me of just how far short of "dark" and "psychological" this movie fell. People actually think this was a dark movie. Compared to what, Burton's? Don't even bring up Schumacher's. Anyway, if they wanted to really get the Batman's character right and bring a truly dark, psychological element to the story, they'd focus a bit on Bruce as a child and teenager, and make him act somewhat like the Batman after his parents' death. You know, ultra-serious, driven, obsessed with obtaining knowledge and working out. Leslie Thompkins was always very troubled by her inability to bring Bruce out of that frame of mind. It would have been nice to see. But yeah, I guess having be a reckless, gun-toting 20-something who goes abroad for 7 years instead of a driven, focused 14 year-old who goes off for 12 years is more "relatable." Plus, you'd have to have an imagination to see this as "translatable," and clearly a lot of so-called fans don't have that.
:wolverine
Exactly. There was no need for Rachel at all. Every single purpose she served in the movie, other than the tacked-on romantic angle (which had no place in this movie to begin with), could have been served by other characters.
The person to lecture Bruce about vengeance and the troubles of Gotham is Leslie Thompkins. She and Alfred should be the only people from before his journey abroad that had any life-changing conversations with. Leslie is a doctor who works pro bono with indigent patients in a bad part of town at a free clinic, with a big heart and much love for Bruce. There was no need to make up a fake A.D.A to serve those functions when there was a real one they could have used. Even if they were going to give him a superfluous love interest and dumb down the movie, there are better ways to construct the plot.
Harvey Dent should have been the Assistant D.A. that the Batman gave helpful information to about Falcone. The fact that they left left him out was ridiculous. I used to think that Harvey was actually an old friend of Bruce Wayne's, because of TAS, but he wasn't. He was the Batman's friend-- the first ally besides Alfred the Batman had. That's how it should have been, as hinted in Year One, where the Batman is shown hiding in his office while Gordon is questioning Dent about him.
Thinking about Leslie Thompkins reminds me of just how far short of "dark" and "psychological" this movie fell. People actually think this was a dark movie. Compared to what, Burton's? Don't even bring up Schumacher's. Anyway, if they wanted to really get the Batman's character right and bring a truly dark, psychological element to the story, they'd focus a bit on Bruce as a child and teenager, and make him act somewhat like the Batman after his parents' death. You know, ultra-serious, driven, obsessed with obtaining knowledge and working out. Leslie Thompkins was always very troubled by her inability to bring Bruce out of that frame of mind. It would have been nice to see. But yeah, I guess having be a reckless, gun-toting 20-something who goes abroad for 7 years instead of a driven, focused 14 year-old who goes off for 12 years is more "relatable." Plus, you'd have to have an imagination to see this as "translatable," and clearly a lot of so-called fans don't have that.
:wolverine
Well said.
Herr Logan
10-30-2006, 07:05 PM
Well said.
You make me all tingly inside, Boom. :)
:wolverine
batman44
10-30-2006, 07:11 PM
Exactly. There was no need for Rachel at all. Every single purpose she served in the movie, other than the tacked-on romantic angle (which had no place in this movie to begin with), could have been served by other characters.
The person to lecture Bruce about vengeance and the troubles of Gotham is Leslie Thompkins. She and Alfred should be the only people from before his journey abroad that had any life-changing conversations with. Leslie is a doctor who works pro bono with indigent patients in a bad part of town at a free clinic, with a big heart and much love for Bruce. There was no need to make up a fake A.D.A to serve those functions when there was a real one they could have used. Even if they were going to give him a superfluous love interest and dumb down the movie, there are better ways to construct the plot.
Harvey Dent should have been the Assistant D.A. that the Batman gave helpful information to about Falcone. The fact that they left left him out was ridiculous. I used to think that Harvey was actually an old friend of Bruce Wayne's, because of TAS, but he wasn't. He was the Batman's friend-- the first ally besides Alfred the Batman had. That's how it should have been, as hinted in Year One, where the Batman is shown hiding in his office while Gordon is questioning Dent about him.
Thinking about Leslie Thompkins reminds me of just how far short of "dark" and "psychological" this movie fell. People actually think this was a dark movie. Compared to what, Burton's? Don't even bring up Schumacher's. Anyway, if they wanted to really get the Batman's character right and bring a truly dark, psychological element to the story, they'd focus a bit on Bruce as a child and teenager, and make him act somewhat like the Batman after his parents' death. You know, ultra-serious, driven, obsessed with obtaining knowledge and working out. Leslie Thompkins was always very troubled by her inability to bring Bruce out of that frame of mind. It would have been nice to see. But yeah, I guess having be a reckless, gun-toting 20-something who goes abroad for 7 years instead of a driven, focused 14 year-old who goes off for 12 years is more "relatable." Plus, you'd have to have an imagination to see this as "translatable," and clearly a lot of so-called fans don't have that.
:wolverine
Wow!! What a missed opportunity. That would have seriously made BB "that" much better.
Herr Logan
10-30-2006, 07:13 PM
Wow!! What a missed opportunity. That would have seriously made BB "that" much better.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. :csad:
:wolverine
That's the problem I genuinely had with Batman Begins. It just didn't feel like Bruce took his mission as seriously as he does in the comics.
Here's how I see it. In the sequel, Batman should come to realize that he's not making progress. He finally begins to see that he is fighting a lost cause. He will never fully vanquish crime in Gotham. Now, add that to the fact that things are getting WORSE.
Batman should be more obsessive in this movie. Colder, with a more focused mind-set. I want to see Bruce losing himself in this monster of his.
batman44
10-30-2006, 07:26 PM
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. :csad:
:wolverine
Don't worry, I'm agreeing 100%:hyper:
Herr Logan
10-30-2006, 07:47 PM
That's the problem I genuinely had with Batman Begins. It just didn't feel like Bruce took his mission as seriously as he does in the comics.
Here's how I see it. In the sequel, Batman should come to realize that he's not making progress. He finally begins to see that he is fighting a lost cause. He will never fully vanquish crime in Gotham. Now, add that to the fact that things are getting WORSE.
Batman should be more obsessive in this movie. Colder, with a more focused mind-set. I want to see Bruce losing himself in this monster of his.
Exactly. It should basically become an addiction for him, one that will not go away.
I don't know if it's possible to credibly "retcon" in a proper Bruce/Batman personality for all the scenes with Rachel Dawes (the only character he acted "real" to besides Alfred) and have him realize (out loud, of course) that he was merely pretending to be normal and to have a chance at any semblance of a normal life, but it would be nice if we could put all that crap behind us and move forward in full Batman mode. That is, he will behave the same with people as Public Bruce (a part Bale played very well), but otherwise, and if need be, with Rachel, he's much colder and clearly obsessed.
Obsessed in a "relaxed" way, though. I don't mean he'll actually be relaxed... I'm trying to find a good way to put this...
Okay, well, the difference is, when he was obsessed with killing Chill, he was kind of unstable and combative in conversation. In being obsessed with his war on crime, it should simply be "how it is," as Keaton's Batman put it, and he'll go so far into it that he won't even see any wisdom at all in anyone's trying to get him to be more "human" when it's not a tactic, except for maybe a couple of pivitol moments (with someone, anyone, other than Rachel-fecking-Dawes).
I want to be clear about this: this is not supposed to be a "problem" in the movie. This isn't something that should ever get solved. The best anyone could hope for is that the Batman becomes more comfortable and productive and that people who know about him find some measure of peace concerning Bruce's "condition" (which very strongly resembles schizoid personality disorder, which means you don't socialize much and don't seek pleasure, to say the least). This is not something the Batman should ever overcome for more than an experimental day or so, just like the War on Crime will never be won.
Also, I would never suggest that Bruce stop bantering with Alfred. Alfred is in some kind of safe zone where Bruce, even in Batman mode, can make dry witticisms (his brand of joke) to him like a close friend (albeit a brusque one) in a way he doesn't with Commissioner Gordon, Robin or Nightwing in the comics for the past several years.
In the Animated Series, though he bantered enough, he pretty much ignored it when Alfred or Robin tried to get him to relax or enjoy himself like a human being. I want that for Movie!Batman. I want to see a real basis for Alfred saying "If you pretend to have fun, you might actually have a little by accident."
I guess that in this movie francise, the same has to go for Lucius Fox. Fox was never supposed to be what he was in 'Begins', but here we are, and at least it's very entertaining, so I can tolerate it. My biggest problem with Scientist Fox is that Nolan and Goyer decided that Bruce needed all the equipment he would use to be layed out for him, rather than have him make a custom suit from separate components (like he did with the cowl... which was completely layed out for him by Alfred) and maybe invent something with moving parts (instead of tiny, inexplicably golden Batathingies). Also, Fox has no business knowing who the Batman is, at the very least not that early in the story.
The coolest thing about the Batman's social dysfunctionality and self-imposed anhedonia (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anhedonia) is that he's extremely skilled at dealing with all sorts of people in all sorts of ways when he's pretending. He's great at faking it, but when he steps inside that cave or sits down in the Batmobile, he's all cowls and scowls.
One thing I'd really like to see is him actually making the psychological transition between the Batman and Bruce Wayne, and/or vice versa. I don't mean as a life event, I mean as a daily ritual. In the comics universe, he does a facial muscle relaxation thing and starts anew, slipping into the chosen persona he needs at the moment. It takes a few seconds. This would help show that this is something he actually works for, now that he's taking the Batman seriously.
:wolverine
Herr Logan
10-30-2006, 07:48 PM
Don't worry, I'm agreeing 100%:hyper:
God bless you.
:wolverine
You're not even worth a specific response, with the ignorant, cliched, pre-fabricated message you saw fit to give me. Stick to drawing, Wams, because you can't convince or appeal to a fan with higher standards worth ****. Your lack of imagination is pathetic and precludes you from having worthwhile thoughts on how Movie!Batman's should act.
:wolverine
LOL!!!
"Herr Logan Down, but not Out...."
Don't lie we all know you are out because as you said to boom
"You make me all tingly inside, Boom. "
You don't get much more out than that.
Do us all a favor and keep you fantasy life off the board.:cwink:
Also if you actualy read what I post its not a fair and
honest truth about the movies and the bussiness.
So do us all a favor and get out of "the God damn basement"
and get a life.:word:
:spidey:
:supes:
Saint
10-30-2006, 09:02 PM
The inevitable response of the man with nothing of substance to say; "Oh yeah, well you're GAY!"
Take that, Herr Logan. Snort.
Herr Logan
10-30-2006, 09:06 PM
The inevitable response of the man with nothing of substance to say; "Oh yeah, well you're GAY!"
Take that, Herr Logan. Snort.
His words... they hurt... :(
I best change my custom title and location listing... some other witty, witty would-be challenger might turn them against me.
:wolverine
P.S.: What Boom and I have is forever. Forever!!
I thought our bond was common knowledge :huh:.
Herr Logan
10-30-2006, 11:27 PM
I thought our bond was common knowledge :huh:.
Apparently not. A genius of Wams' caliber certainly wouldn't mock me with personal information that was common knowledge, would he (like stuff that's in my public profile)? I mean, come on... the guy is unstoppable when it comes to verbal combat. I'm injured over here... Hold me, please.
So yeah, the next time they make a new Batman franchise, in 20 or so years, I'd really like it if they could rise above this obsession with bulky rubber and superfluous love interests and give us that cold, calculating, brilliant, obsessive bad-ass mofo known as the Batman. The way Goyer wrote and Bale performed the Playboy Bruce persona was outstanding, but we need to see a much greater disparity between that and the Batman persona.
In 'Begins', Useless Rachel came out and said, "This is your mask. Your true face is the one the criminals now fear." This is one element of the character that truly needs to be shown, not just told. I'm fine with someone putting a label on it, but only after we truly see it in play. Tim Burton's Batman was going on this principal, although not a full enough extent in practice. When Alfred reminded him that Vicki Vale, the gorgeous blonde he just tapped, was more fired up the more Bruce played hard to get, Bruce said, "I can't think about that right now," because he had work to do. When Vicki asked him why he had to be the Batman, he didn't make up excuses to mitigate the situation ("Batman is just a symbol, Rachel"); he said "This is how it is. It's not a perfect world." While that line didn't carry much weight dramatically in the moment (especially with Michael Keaton's modest build in that turtleneck, pacing around out of costume), the words truly capture the character. He's obsessed with making things more "perfect." As things are, he'll compromise on certain things out of necessity-- making deals with low-level criminals and such to get to the big fish-- but if he did actually eradicate serious violent crime in his city, he'd probably take it all the way down that slippery slope, just like in that creepy Justice Lords episode on 'Justice League.' If you parked illegally at night or littered, you might get a visit from the Dark Knight. "I'll give you one warning. Move. Your. Car."
That's the kind of Batman I want. One with a good soul and intentions that are more pure than impure (compassion/protective based more than vengeance based, on the whole), but always pushing that envelope little by little, walking the line between reasonable and outright crazy tactics. I don't mean he's overly brutal, I mean he indulges in his fear-inducing power trips quite a lot and spends far more time and energy in perfecting his own tactics and arsenal (of information and equipment) than on anything else when he's not on patrol. Obsessed beyond hope, for the most part.
Were it up to me, the first movie would have laid solid groundwork for this state of mind and have nothing to do with romance whatsoever. Yes, there would be models and starlets hanging off Bruce's arms when he's in public and there would be rumors about his exploits with women deliberately put out there (ultimately by Bruce himself, as it's all part of the Plan), but no real love interest, at all.
The second movie would prominently feature Catwoman, who is strongly attracted to the Batman and vice versa, and have Selina Kyle dating Bruce Wayne. I'd have Bruce really give some thought as to whether he can have room in his life for romance and still stay on top of his game with the Mission. Obviously, he'd never once consider giving up the Batman-- no real fan would suggest that-- but he'd consider making some concessions, cutting back his time in certain areas, taking down some walls he built to keep himself as either Playboy Bruce or the Batman when interacting with people other than Leslie and Alfred. By the end of the movie, he'll have figured out that Selina is the Catwoman, and either this will either strongly influence or just be the cherry on top of the overall conclusion that he can't really make it work.
This would not be the main plot of the movie, of course, but it would be a prominent subplot. The most important part of any Batman movie should be the Batman vs. Crime, not whatever Bruce Wayne is doing when screwing around out of uniform. This is a love interest I can buy into, because it actually examines the Batman's character without dumbing things down and just making it "female friendly" in a half-assed stereotypical way. That is, if it's done correctly, of course. There are lots of details to get right; this is just an overview of how it could work. After that, no more serious love interests until at least the fourth movie. There doesn't need to be, nor should there be, one in every movie.
:wolverine
Yeah, If Bruce is going to get involved romantically, it should end up being with a woman who is not completely stable herself. I don't see Bruce being that attracted to a goody goody like Rachel. She wouldn't even be on his radar. It bothered me that Bruce even had a single relationship after his parents died. Not that he could have one before, but you know what I mean.
Chris Wallace
10-31-2006, 06:23 PM
Yeah, If Bruce is going to get involved romantically, it should end up being with a woman who is not completely stable herself. I don't see Bruce being that attracted to a goody goody like Rachel. She wouldn't even be on his radar. It bothered me that Bruce even had a single relationship after his parents died. Not that he could have one before, but you know what I mean.
Selina? Talia? Andrea?
ROBOCOP CPU001
10-31-2006, 08:22 PM
and this all has what to do with his new look?
Back on topic please ladies and gents..
Enigma2k
10-31-2006, 08:45 PM
That is a load of....^
You idea of Batman is inhuman void of being a well rounded believable
character. Sorry but a Batman movie will NEVER be to the letter of
the law of a comicbook (which has many interpretations) or some
fanboys grandiose yet untranslatable idea to film.
Hollywood's version will always be collaborative interpretation.
so sit back and enjoy the ride or not.
It will never beat your personal vision.
Some concepts may some may not.
For example...Anton Furst Gotham City was a great and lasting concept
on how to interpret Gotham City.
There was some thing in every film I got.
I don't whole sale dismiss them or accept them.
The Batman I have is the best.
Im sure the same goes for the rest of you.:word:
:spidey:
:supes:
I can see your point.
basically make our own Batfilm.
Selina? Talia? Andrea?
What are you trying to say? Did he have normal relationships with these women? They're all unstable individuals like I said, even counting Andrea though I normally wouldn't. If you can even count those as normal romantic relationships.
DavidTyler
11-01-2006, 05:18 PM
.............Anyone who knows anything about the version of the Batman being adapted in this film knows that a love interest in a movie (that isn't Catwoman or Talia, that is) is completely contrary to what the Batman is all about. If you had to pick one superhero who could easily go without a love interest, it is the Batman. He doesn't have time for that cutesy bull*****. He's supposed to be obsessed with his work and that alone. ......................:wolverine
Yes, but if they bring in a REAL love interest (as opposed to the hastily tacked on Rachel Daws) it can be hot and powerful. Someone like Talia or Selina Kyle.
Something that shows his inner conflict between his obsession and his life.
Herr Logan
11-01-2006, 05:56 PM
Yes, but if they bring in a REAL love interest (as opposed to the hastily tacked on Rachel Daws) it can be hot and powerful. Someone like Talia or Selina Kyle.
Exactly.
I would make this a major subplot in just one movie and handle it carefully so as never to lead the viewer to think he's just another leading man type. The Batman should never question his mission unless he's just lost a sidekick or other close person, but early on, such as a second movie, he could question whether there's room in his life for "normal" stuff like love with the mission being the priority.
I think I would choose Catwoman over Talia any day, since I probably would never even get to R'as Al Ghul in my ideal franchise and there's no real question as to whether the Batman would compromise himself so much as to actually maintain a relationship with a deadly terrorist like Talia. Catwoman merely steals and beats up lowlife scum, so she's on the lighter side of a gray area, but Talia is unequivocally a hardcore villain, and one of the worst out there (she's more dangerous than most of the Rogues Gallery, since she's got unlimited resources and has the specific intent to kill lots of people on the planet for what she deems a good cause). He may tap that ass for a night or two, but there's no future for them, and for the Batman to be a consistent character, the viewer would know that from the moment they find out who Talia really is and what she's capable of.
Something that shows his inner conflict between his obsession and his life.
His obsession is his life. At least for the real Batman. But yeah, I get your meaning.
:wolverine
Herr Logan let me apologize for my comment earlier in this thread.
It was uncalled for.
Hope you are willing to accept my apology.
I took your reply earlier as an attack..even so I should have not reacted in that manner.
Anyway lets get back to the topic at hand.
Peace...
:spidey:
:supes:
Herr Logan
11-01-2006, 06:38 PM
Herr Logan let me apologize for my comment earlier in this thread.
It was uncalled for.
Hope you are willing to accept my apology.
I took your reply earlier as an attack..even so I should have not reacted in that manner.
Anyway lets get back to the topic at hand.
Peace...
:spidey:
:supes:
I accept your apology and offer my own. I was set off by your use of "fanboy," which is one of my hot buttons, and I was overly harsh in responding. Peace.
By the way, I looked at some of your drawings on your homepage and they're amazing. Like I said somewhere much earlier in this thread, I really like your design for a new Movie!Batman costume. I'd make a few slight changes (to the boots, gloves and belt, primarily), but if I had to take it as is over the one they used in 'Begins', I'd take it in a second.
http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i271/nwonknu2k/DECObatman1.jpg
:wolverine
Chris Wallace
11-02-2006, 02:28 PM
What are you trying to say? Did he have normal relationships with these women? They're all unstable individuals like I said, even counting Andrea though I normally wouldn't. If you can even count those as normal romantic relationships.
I normally wouldn't count Andrea either. But they are all a little screwed up & the only women who seem capable of leaving a lasting impression on Bruce, let alone winning his heart. They're the closest he's come to stable relationships.
Miranda Fox
12-01-2006, 07:40 AM
I think I lot of you will like this. From BOF:
Page to work on Costumes
Author: Jett
Friday, December 1, 2006 - 4:39 PM According to two online sources, Gary Page will have somthing to do with costumes on TDK. From SHOW AND STAY:
"Gary Page who is currently designing for the new HARRY POTTER film and will soon be working on the next BATMAN."
And from THE INDEPENDENT:
"As the fabric buyer for the BATMAN sequel, he is busy sourcing stretch fabrics for the outfit worn by the man in black, played by Christian Bale, buying only the very finest materials in Paris."
It looks to me that Mr. Page will be working for costume designer Lindy Hemming, who will return for TDK, I've been told. Thanks to "Bambang" for the links.
Stretch fabrics? Sounds awesome! :up:
Darkest Knight
12-01-2006, 10:10 AM
Herr Logan, who said his obsession isn't his life in Nolan's universe? As was stated, he is just starting out. He THINKS in the first movie, he will just be able to do it for alittle bit and then be satisfied. But by the end, and with the next movie, we realize he has become consumed by it.
Chris Wallace
12-01-2006, 10:17 AM
Mt kid is predicting a bigger symbol & redesigned belt. :)
thegameq
12-01-2006, 10:46 AM
Apparently not. A genius of Wams' caliber certainly wouldn't mock me with personal information that was common knowledge, would he (like stuff that's in my public profile)? I mean, come on... the guy is unstoppable when it comes to verbal combat. I'm injured over here... Hold me, please.
So yeah, the next time they make a new Batman franchise, in 20 or so years, I'd really like it if they could rise above this obsession with bulky rubber and superfluous love interests and give us that cold, calculating, brilliant, obsessive bad-ass mofo known as the Batman. The way Goyer wrote and Bale performed the Playboy Bruce persona was outstanding, but we need to see a much greater disparity between that and the Batman persona.
In 'Begins', Useless Rachel came out and said, "This is your mask. Your true face is the one the criminals now fear." This is one element of the character that truly needs to be shown, not just told. I'm fine with someone putting a label on it, but only after we truly see it in play. Tim Burton's Batman was going on this principal, although not a full enough extent in practice. When Alfred reminded him that Vicki Vale, the gorgeous blonde he just tapped, was more fired up the more Bruce played hard to get, Bruce said, "I can't think about that right now," because he had work to do. When Vicki asked him why he had to be the Batman, he didn't make up excuses to mitigate the situation ("Batman is just a symbol, Rachel"); he said "This is how it is. It's not a perfect world." While that line didn't carry much weight dramatically in the moment (especially with Michael Keaton's modest build in that turtleneck, pacing around out of costume), the words truly capture the character. He's obsessed with making things more "perfect." As things are, he'll compromise on certain things out of necessity-- making deals with low-level criminals and such to get to the big fish-- but if he did actually eradicate serious violent crime in his city, he'd probably take it all the way down that slippery slope, just like in that creepy Justice Lords episode on 'Justice League.' If you parked illegally at night or littered, you might get a visit from the Dark Knight. "I'll give you one warning. Move. Your. Car."
That's the kind of Batman I want. One with a good soul and intentions that are more pure than impure (compassion/protective based more than vengeance based, on the whole), but always pushing that envelope little by little, walking the line between reasonable and outright crazy tactics. I don't mean he's overly brutal, I mean he indulges in his fear-inducing power trips quite a lot and spends far more time and energy in perfecting his own tactics and arsenal (of information and equipment) than on anything else when he's not on patrol. Obsessed beyond hope, for the most part.
Were it up to me, the first movie would have laid solid groundwork for this state of mind and have nothing to do with romance whatsoever. Yes, there would be models and starlets hanging off Bruce's arms when he's in public and there would be rumors about his exploits with women deliberately put out there (ultimately by Bruce himself, as it's all part of the Plan), but no real love interest, at all.
The second movie would prominently feature Catwoman, who is strongly attracted to the Batman and vice versa, and have Selina Kyle dating Bruce Wayne. I'd have Bruce really give some thought as to whether he can have room in his life for romance and still stay on top of his game with the Mission. Obviously, he'd never once consider giving up the Batman-- no real fan would suggest that-- but he'd consider making some concessions, cutting back his time in certain areas, taking down some walls he built to keep himself as either Playboy Bruce or the Batman when interacting with people other than Leslie and Alfred. By the end of the movie, he'll have figured out that Selina is the Catwoman, and either this will either strongly influence or just be the cherry on top of the overall conclusion that he can't really make it work.
This would not be the main plot of the movie, of course, but it would be a prominent subplot. The most important part of any Batman movie should be the Batman vs. Crime, not whatever Bruce Wayne is doing when screwing around out of uniform. This is a love interest I can buy into, because it actually examines the Batman's character without dumbing things down and just making it "female friendly" in a half-assed stereotypical way. That is, if it's done correctly, of course. There are lots of details to get right; this is just an overview of how it could work. After that, no more serious love interests until at least the fourth movie. There doesn't need to be, nor should there be, one in every movie.
:wolverine
Sounds to me like your movie would more or less be a live action version of TA or MOTF.....so would mine.
Why is it that TAS can tell better stories than the live action version? Why do they always complicate the character of Batman? He is vengence, an obsessed soul. His is part The Shadow and Zorro (Grey Ghost). He is not James Bond or Iron man. He is a dark noir character in a noir world.
After close to twenty years waiting for "the" Batman movie, we get another summer movie version of Batman. Just give us a Batman movie minus all the fluff. Despite not liking the art direction or look of Begins, I really believed Nolan was going to give us a hardcore Batman movie for the fans and avoid making another summer movie.
Taiwarriorz21
12-01-2006, 10:48 AM
I would like Batman to look a little more muscle and a little less bulky. The ears need to be raised higher and maybe some more modifications to his suit would be in order. The re-designed belt, and even adding more gadgets would be a great idea! If any info is gathered about the movie, then send me a message at www.myspace.com/Superiorfishmaster Thanks!
Chris Wallace
12-01-2006, 04:28 PM
He is vengence, an obsessed soul. His is part The Shadow and Zorro (Grey Ghost). He is not James Bond or Iron man. He is a dark noir character in a noir world.
Yet another reason why he shouldn't look like a drab Superman.
muertevilla
12-01-2006, 06:04 PM
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y201/stillbornmarc/mgs4ssuit.jpg
this minus the guns plus the cape and cowl. i'd still prefer to see the suit without the cape but ehh it wouldnt work for the fans. the suit is supposed to be made for urban combat and should be made for the purpose of function and not appearance. of course the black and horns fall into appearance, but the black serves well for stealth purposes and the horns for intimidation...so it falls more into function...whadda ya think?
lujho
12-01-2006, 07:45 PM
I think I lot of you will like this. From BOF:
Stretch fabrics? Sounds awesome! :up:
Yeah. It could just be the undersuit they're talking about - the one they glue the rubber on to - but maybe they really are trying something different. A glimmer of hope there anyway.
heypapajinx
12-02-2006, 05:59 AM
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y201/stillbornmarc/mgs4ssuit.jpg
this minus the guns plus the cape and cowl. i'd still prefer to see the suit without the cape but ehh it wouldnt work for the fans. the suit is supposed to be made for urban combat and should be made for the purpose of function and not appearance. of course the black and horns fall into appearance, but the black serves well for stealth purposes and the horns for intimidation...so it falls more into function...whadda ya think?
:up:
but i still say mines the best idea i've seen before... you know... for the camouflage.:cwink:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e109/heypapajinx/newsuit.jpghttp://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e109/heypapajinx/cbale2.jpg
^^^^or maybe even this one
Halcohol
12-02-2006, 06:20 AM
Honestly, I really like the idea in the first page of this thread. It's an homage to the '60s series, but would still work within the universe established by Batman Begins.
Taiwarriorz21
12-02-2006, 10:22 AM
idk I just want them to make him of acrobatic and a little slicker like the new Superman Suit. They also could modify/add the gadgets and also the suit/ ears. Should they change the suit color to partially black/grey? I believe it would be best to just make the black slicker lookin...Leave the grey to the Comics.
Miranda Fox
12-02-2006, 11:24 AM
Yeah. It could just be the undersuit they're talking about - the one they glue the rubber on to - but maybe they really are trying something different. A glimmer of hope there anyway.
If that improves flexibility, then I'm fine with that I feel if Nolan really wants to improve aspects for TDK, then improving the suit's mobility is a must. If anything, so we can get some top notch fight scenes.
Herr Logan
12-03-2006, 10:56 AM
Herr Logan, who said his obsession isn't his life in Nolan's universe? As was stated, he is just starting out. He THINKS in the first movie, he will just be able to do it for alittle bit and then be satisfied. But by the end, and with the next movie, we realize he has become consumed by it.
That's an ass-backwards way to do it. I'm sick of hearing, "he's just starting out," and, "It's an origin movie," as excuses for not getting it right on the first try.
The Batman is supposed to be obsessed from the beginning. You seem to be thinking of a Spider-Man type character who starts superheroing out of an obligation of some sort and later realizes that his "part-time job" is dominating his schedule. This is the Batman we're talking about. The mission is what's important, and everything else is a means toward that end.
All this self-important talk about how 'Batman Begins' was a "serious" movie that stayed "close to the comics," and yet the creators didn't see fit to have the Batman take his mission nearly as seriously as in the comics. Granted, they were stuck with a studio mandate for a superfluous love interest, but they could have found a way to throw a small bone to the chick flick demographic without having Bruce Wayne shame himself and claim he was normal enough to hold a romantic relationship. Clearly this isn't anything close to as unfaithful and disgusting as Murdock having sex with Elektra while innocent people cried for help in the theatrical edition of 'Daredevil,' but that was still pretty shameful. "Batman's just a symbol, Rachel." Yeah, because the real Batman would be too "unrelatable" for the "general audience."
The general sense I get from these boards is that people either want the Batman to be too dark or can't handle him being dark enough. Very simplistic thinking, with a huge lack of imagination. God forbid we have a heroic Batman who doesn't kill but still scares people ****less and is completely obsessed with his Mission. God forbid he spend more time in costume than out of it. God forbid we get a competent horse right out of the gate instead of wading through a morass of "rookie time" and insipid claims about "I am more."
:wolverine
Herr Logan
12-03-2006, 11:18 AM
Sounds to me like your movie would more or less be a live action version of TA or MOTF.....so would mine.
Yes, but with a bit more (accurate) technical information. I believe in throwing in real-world psychology and criminology information to fill in gaps and raise the credibility factor. Notice I said "throw in," which does not necessitate that I take out anything that has always been a part of his character or image. The Batman will never, ever be truly "realistic" and still remain the Batman. It cannot possibly happen. Thus, we should flesh out the elements that can be seen as "realistic" and either rationalize the fantasy elements by using our imagination, or leave them in without justification.
Example: Why does the Batman wear briefs/trunks over his tights? Well, the first point to make is, he does wear them, period. The second thing to note is that the trunks are the only part of his costume that has not been justified with a technological function in the world of the comics. Nolan and Goyer had absolutely no creative hand in the idea of the Batman wearing a Nomex/Kevlar suit or using directional microphones in the ear pieces. Those were already there in the comics, except the bodysuit is much lighter and more flexible and therefore superior. What's the one thing the Batman needs but doesn't have? A rappelling harness. They even mentioned it in the movie, and failed miserably with that. Even if he hadn't cut off the straps from that belt, it was never a proper harness to begin with. It goes around the pelvic area, not over the shoulders. Every person who ever saw a person in rock climbing gear knows that. Anyway, if the Batman is going to clip his grapnel device to his belt and zip upwards, he needs a rappelling harness. Anyone who denies that is useless and shouldn't be allowed to speak in this forum-- you either know your facts, or you don't. So, there's these trunks that have no function and a need for a rappelling harness. Combine those two facts and you've got an air-tight argument for keeping the trunks. A harness built into a shorts-type garment is easier to put on and remove than a typical webbing harness. You can add extra Kevlar protection there, too, which further protects his hip bones and the Wayne family jewels. Nobody, yet, has given so much as a cogent argument against this, much less a valid one. The best I got was, "No, the trunks are stupid." This is why you need a smart person to right for a smart hero, because ignorant and stupid people with no imagination only bring the story down.
So that's an example of preserving aspects from the comics and actually improving them when bringing them to a movie. Fact is, I think that should be brought to the comics as well, and I'm really surprised that they haven't come up with this, yet. Everything else in the costume has both a utility and style component.
Why is it that TAS can tell better stories than the live action version? Why do they always complicate the character of Batman? He is vengence, an obsessed soul. His is part The Shadow and Zorro (Grey Ghost). He is not James Bond or Iron man. He is a dark noir character in a noir world.
After close to twenty years waiting for "the" Batman movie, we get another summer movie version of Batman. Just give us a Batman movie minus all the fluff. Despite not liking the art direction or look of Begins, I really believed Nolan was going to give us a hardcore Batman movie for the fans and avoid making another summer movie.
I loved the movie when it came out. I saw it four or five times in the theater, and I never do that for movies. I guess I lowered my expectations so much and predicted it would suck, so I was very pleasantly surprised. The euphoria from that lasted a good while, and then, after lots of analysis and viewings on DVD, I realized that the plot has more holes than my oldest pair of socks, and if you expect "realism" from this movie, it's an absolute joke. I'm not saying it doesn't have a lot of good points, and I still think it's the best recent superhero movie, but it is in no way realistic (I'll give a point-by-point list of why if anyone's arrogant enough to attempt to refute me), and it isn't anything close to what it could have been, both in terms of faithfulness to the source material and in terms of mature, intelligent entertainment. People call this "dark" and "serious" and "psychological." No, it's not. If they wanted that, they'd have made him the real Batman and not a scared boy who's afraid the pretty girl doesn't think he's special. It's not that he didn't act like the real Batman at several points. He did. Unfortunately, that voice was a joke and the costume is ugly (and not in the good way), so it's not as powerful.
:wolverine
Crooklyn
12-03-2006, 01:55 PM
That's an ass-backwards way to do it. I'm sick of hearing, "he's just starting out," and, "It's an origin movie," as excuses for not getting it right on the first try.
I think it's been said enough times here, but there are various ways Bruce is interpreted in his early years. So no, I don't really think there's a "definite" route that they can take.
The Batman is supposed to be obsessed from the beginning. You seem to be thinking of a Spider-Man type character who starts superheroing out of an obligation of some sort and later realizes that his "part-time job" is dominating his schedule.
I would say in the beginning, he's focused. Wouldn't go as far as saying obsessed. Something like that....takes time. You'd have to be engulfed in it completely before you even have time to realize this is all that you're living for. So in that regard, it does make sense for him to gradually becomes "lost in the abyss" as Alfred would say. Heck, the whole BTAS series showcased this progression.
This is the Batman we're talking about. The mission is what's important, and everything else is a means toward that end.
Don't know about that last sentence. Sounds more like a killer to me. :o
TwilightPro101
12-03-2006, 04:57 PM
Suit worked great in BB. Should stay the same unless they intend to tweak the design a bit.
Tad Fatherton
12-03-2006, 05:39 PM
according to my friend that works directly for nolan: the dark knight isn't just a good title. in this movie batman will actually be wearing a suit of armor. i've seen some concept art for the new design and his helmet will look a lot like sauron's.
according to my friend that works directly for nolan: the dark knight isn't just a good title. in this movie batman will actually be wearing a suit of armor. i've seen some concept art for the new design and his helmet will look a lot like sauron's.
Not a very good joke.
Better luck next time :csad:.
Walks Unseen
12-03-2006, 06:06 PM
according to my friend that works directly for nolan: the dark knight isn't just a good title. in this movie batman will actually be wearing a suit of armor. i've seen some concept art for the new design and his helmet will look a lot like sauron's.
Sounds like they'll be going all Dark Knight Returns in this film. Like in the The Dark Night Returns book, Batman wears armour to combat Superman.
As for suit changes, I think they should keep it virtually the same. The suit worked. It was like body armour which makes sense if you are going out solo to fight crime. The only changes that I would suggest is making it a bit more gray perhaps and give him the pouch utility belt of the books. The pouch utility belt would work because it is more realistic than having a belt with nothing on it to hold gadgets on. Again the new Batman films are about "Gritty, urban realism" in the words of Nolan and thus the pouch belt fits this theme.
Abe Rush
12-03-2006, 06:36 PM
While we're on the subject of Batman's costume...
I wanted to know what you guys thought of Batman's eyes or more precisely his eyeholes. They have been presented the same way throughout all these years ( ever since Batman '89 I think ) and I was wondering if you liked the idea of putting black makeup underneath his eyes or if you wanted something else instead?
Afterall, it is quite different than in the comics & cartoons...
Saint
12-03-2006, 06:59 PM
People call this "dark" and "serious" and "psychological." No, it's not. If they wanted that, they'd have made him the real Batman and not a scared boy who's afraid the pretty girl doesn't think he's special. It's not that he didn't act like the real Batman at several points. He did. Unfortunately, that voice was a joke and the costume is ugly (and not in the good way), so it's not as powerful.
:wolverine
I usually agree with your posts, Logan, as you know--but I'm afraid I'm going to have to fight you on this one.
For starters, obviously I agree that Rachel was unnecessary and superfluous--but I have to say you're giving her credit for influence she doesn't actually have. A criticism of Begins I often hear is that Bruce was on "autopilot" throughout the film, which is to say he just bounces from place to place and one of those places happens to be Batman. The truth of the matter is that Bruce's thought process, his character arc, is all there on the screen--it's just not explicit. If you examine the events, you can see it. I think the problem (if you can call it a problem) is that the film isn't told in chronological order, which makes this harder to identify.
Back to my original point: everybody gives Rachel credit for inspiring Bruce to become Batman, but she didn't. The exchange outside Falcone's club may have put Bruce off killing, but it didn't put him on the path to becoming Batman. Had he taken what she said to heart, he would have become a cop or a lawyer. Rachel got angry when Bruce said "your system is broken," but she didn't sway him: he still believes that, or he would not have circumvented the system by becoming Batman.
That argument wasn't written to teach Bruce about justice, it was written to show Bruce the real enemy. Bruce had never thought of anything beyond Joe Chill; to him, Chill was the sum of evil, and evil had to be brought to justice. But Bruce realized that the true evil was much larger. It wasn't even Falcone; it wasn't just crime, it was injustice as a whole.
The next question, then is why did Bruce walk in and confront Falcone? There was nothing to be accomplished here. The reason is that Bruce simply had nothing else to do: he had no tools, no skills, no plan, only a vague desire to oppose injustice. Now the enemy has been identified, but he can't fight it because he knows nothing about it. Falcone tells him this outright; that he doesn't understand, and that's why Bruce goes abroad: the find the next piece of the puzzle, to understand crime.
When we find him at the beginning of the film, he's got that piece, but he's still incomplete. He has the knowledge, the tools, and the skills, but he still doesn't know what to do with them--he's still got no plan. He thinks too small, fighting petty thugs, like Ducard says. The time with the league gives him the last thing he needs: a method. A way to put together these things he's been introduced to, and use them to fight injustice. Rachel showed him the enemy, Falcone made him understand it, his time abroad gave him the skills, and his time with Ducard gave him the method, but none of these people gave him Batman. He had to draw that from himself. That's really my favourite part of the film, when he descends into the cave and you see, right there, that he's building Batman. He was nothing until then, just a man with ideas put in his head by different people. That's where he becomes something greater than the sum of the pieces they gave him.
Rachel was not responsible for that. She didn't motivate that. She was, in my opinion, the most insignificant piece of the puzzle. He didn't become Batman to prove anything to her; he avoided her, in fact. She comes to him, he doesn't come to her. While I certainly think he did want to impress her, that's not why he became Batman--that's just why he ultimately told her about it.
After he becomes Batman, nobody really affects him ever again. He's still growing, but it's no longer influenced by those around him. Even when he's got the costume on, he thinks he can crush evil and be done with it, and leave Gotham. This changes by the time he faces Ducard, as by this point he's come to realize he'll always be Batman, and his place is in Gotham. Nobody gave him this idea, he came to it himself. He is more of a complete person now, not a child taking direction. Alfred tells him not to ruin his name, and if that had happened years earlier, he would have listened. But he has come to the point where he has only taken from people those things he needs. He ignores Alfred, he ignores Ducard's pleas to join him, he ignores Rachel's defense of the justice system. He used them when he needed them, but he doesn't need them anymore.
I won't call the film "psychological" because I think that's a fanboy buzzword that really doesn't mean anything. It's more subtle than that; the film is smart. Yeah, there are problems. Rachel could have been replaced by Leslie Thompkins (not as a love interest, but as the person to turn Bruce off killing and show him the larger enemy, beyond Chill). Yeah, the technical aspects of the microwave emitter make no sense. But the film overcomes these things because it presents a solid and complete version of Batman. I think it's very clever how they put the title at the very end, because he wasn't really Batman till then. Even after all the components had fallen into place, he wasn't Batman till he understood that he was not, in fact, doing this for the sake of his ego (as Alfred had accused). He didn't need thanks, because it wasn't about him, and when he said that he was Batman.
As for the voice, in my opinion the problem was only inconsistency. I think the voice he uses when he speaks to Rachel on his first night out is perfect. I think in every other scene, it's a little weaker. It's best on the first night out, when he interrogates Flass, and when he's at Gordon's house. It's worst when he's on the rooftop with Rachel, and when he first joins Gordon in the Narrows. It must have been hard on the throat, which would explain why it changes. I hope Bale can make it a little more consistent and less exaggerated in TDK.
Dark Guardian
12-03-2006, 07:47 PM
I usually agree with your posts, Logan, as you know--but I'm afraid I'm going to have to fight you on this one.
For starters, obviously I agree that Rachel was unnecessary and superfluous--but I have to say you're giving her credit for influence she doesn't actually have. A criticism of Begins I often hear is that Bruce was on "autopilot" throughout the film, which is to say he just bounces from place to place and one of those places happens to be Batman. The truth of the matter is that Bruce's thought process, his character arc, is all there on the screen--it's just not explicit. If you examine the events, you can see it. I think the problem (if you can call it a problem) is that the film isn't told in chronological order, which makes this harder to identify.
Back to my original point: everybody gives Rachel credit for inspiring Bruce to become Batman, but she didn't. The exchange outside Falcone's club may have put Bruce off killing, but it didn't put him on the path to becoming Batman. Had he taken what she said to heart, he would have become a cop or a lawyer. Rachel got angry when Bruce said "your system is broken," but she didn't sway him: he still believes that, or he would not have circumvented the system by becoming Batman.
That argument wasn't written to teach Bruce about justice, it was written to show Bruce the real enemy. Bruce had never thought of anything beyond Joe Chill; to him, Chill was the sum of evil, and evil had to be brought to justice. But Bruce realized that the true evil was much larger. It wasn't even Falcone; it wasn't just crime, it was injustice as a whole.
The next question, then is why did Bruce walk in and confront Falcone? There was nothing to be accomplished here. The reason is that Bruce simply had nothing else to do: he had no tools, no skills, no plan, only a vague desire to oppose injustice. Now the enemy has been identified, but he can't fight it because he knows nothing about it. Falcone tells him this outright; that he doesn't understand, and that's why Bruce goes abroad: the find the next piece of the puzzle, to understand crime.
When we find him at the beginning of the film, he's got that piece, but he's still incomplete. He has the knowledge, the tools, and the skills, but he still doesn't know what to do with them--he's still got no plan. He thinks too small, fighting petty thugs, like Ducard says. The time with the league gives him the last thing he needs: a method. A way to put together these things he's been introduced to, and use them to fight injustice. Rachel showed him the enemy, Falcone made him understand it, his time abroad gave him the skills, and his time with Ducard gave him the method, but none of these people gave him Batman. He had to draw that from himself. That's really my favourite part of the film, when he descends into the cave and you see, right there, that he's building Batman. He was nothing until then, just a man with ideas put in his head by different people. That's where he becomes something greater than the sum of the pieces they gave him.
Rachel was not responsible for that. She didn't motivate that. She was, in my opinion, the most insignificant piece of the puzzle. He didn't become Batman to prove anything to her; he avoided her, in fact. She comes to him, he doesn't come to her. While I certainly think he did want to impress her, that's not why he became Batman--that's just why he ultimately told her about it.
After he becomes Batman, nobody really effects him ever again. He's still growing, but it's no longer influenced by those around him. Even when he's got the costume on, he thinks he can crush evil and be done with it, and leave Gotham. This changes by the time he faces Ducard, as by this point he's come to realize he'll always be Batman, and his place is in Gotham. Nobody gave him this idea, he came to it himself. He is more of a complete person now, not a child taking direction. Alfred tells him not to ruin his name, and if that had happened years earlier, he would have listened. But he has come to the point where he has only taken from people those things he needs. He ignores Alfred, he ignores Ducard's pleas to join him, he ignores Rachel's defense of the justice system. He used them when he needed them, but he doesn't need them anymore.
I won't call the film "psychological" because I think that's a fanboy buzzword that really doesn't mean anything. It's more subtle than that; the film is smart. Yeah, there are problems. Rachel could have been replaced by Leslie Thompkins (not as a love interest, but as the person to turn Bruce off killing and show him the larger enemy, beyond Chill). Yeah, the technical aspects of the microwave emitter make no sense. But the film overcomes these things because it presents a solid and complete version of Batman. I think it's very clever how they put the title at the very end, because he wasn't really Batman till then. Even after all the components had fallen into place, he wasn't Batman till he understood that he was not, in fact, doing this for the sake of his ego (as Alfred had accused). He didn't need thanks, because it wasn't about him, and when he said that he was Batman.
As for the voice, in my opinion the problem was only inconsistency. I think the voice he uses when he speaks to Rachel on his first night out is perfect. I think in every other scene, it's a little weaker. It's best on the first night out, when he interrogates Flass, and when he's at Gordon's house. It's worst when he's on the rooftop with Rachel, and when he first joins Gordon in the Narrows. It must have been hard on the throat, which would explain why it changes. I hope Bale can make it a little more consistent and less exaggerated in TDK.
I have only one thing to say to such a post.
Spot on.
:up:
Anguissette1979
12-03-2006, 08:21 PM
I'm all for updating the suit so long as there's a reason behind it. I'd hate to see them suit-hopping as in the previous franchise simply for the sake of updating. I'd like to see some continuity in place.
DeFett
12-03-2006, 08:26 PM
I'm all for updating the suit so long as there's a reason behind it. I'd hate to see them suit-hopping as in the previous franchise simply for the sake of updating. I'd like to see some continuity in place.
Maybe the BB suit could get a working in the first half of the movie.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.